Hi Gene, ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gene Heskett" > To: "amanda-users" > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 8:40:36 AM > Subject: Re: Monitor and Manage
>> >> So, let's suppose I fire up all three amdumps at once: >> > Don't do that, instead wrap them in a bash script that will run all of > them sequentially. And run the script with the backuo users crontab if > you want it automatic, which IMO it should be. I am backing up three clients to three separate vtape locations, which I think means three different vtape pools. Superficially, there is no problem with this, meaning the backups run to completion and collect the expected amount of data. Since each separate copy of AMANDA is contacting each independent client and storing the backup in independent locations, I don't foresee any cross-contamination or confusion, but I confess that I have not analyzed the backups to prove this -- yet. The server is the only component that is burdened by the multiple copies of AMANDA, but I don't see that demand being reduced by serializing the jobs. It is true that this is fragile, meaning a future change in configuration could change this matrix of independence, but the worst case is concurrent non-zero dumps have a race condition, so you're never sure which backup has the most recent copy of an overlapping file. The Linux clients run xinet.d, so they are thread-safe, and even backingup overlapping DLE will work, but you'll never know which backup has the most recent version of a file. On Windows clients, I don't know enough about ZWCService to know if it can fork child processes or if it is thread-safe, but assuming it has the same functionality as Linux, it suffers from the same problems, of not knowing where the most recent copy of an overlapping file might be. Is there another reason that I don't want to run my backups simultaneously? Thanks for the help, Gene. -- Chris. V:916.974.0424 F:916.974.0428
