Stefan, In order for the holding disk to be used it has to be bigger than the largest DLE. To get parallelism in dumping it has to be large enough to hold more than one DLE at a time, ideally I suppose the number of in parallel dumps, and then some more so that you can begin spooling to tape while a new dump is being performed.
I think that a work area larger than a tape is probably overkill - but the took I like to use to visualize where the bottle neck is, is amplot. With a work area as large as yours I think you will probably see that the work area is never fully utilized, and that dumping constraints are somewhere else, or showing that you can increase parallelism in dumping to shorten overall amdump run time. I don't know what the config looks like, number of clients, number and size of partitions being managed, at some point you will run out of CPU, or disk performance or something you can't overcome with Amanda tuning. Best, Brian -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Stefan G. Weichinger Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 9:43 AM To: [email protected] Subject: holding disk too small? ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Another naive question: Does the holdingdisk have to be bigger than the size of one tape? I know that it would be good, but what if not? I right now have ~2TB holding disk and "runtapes 2" with LTO6 tapetype. That is 2.4 TB per tape. So far it works but maybe not optimal. I consider recreating that holding disk array (currently RAID1 of 2 disks) as RAID0 .. And sub-question: how would you configure these parameters here: autoflush yes flush-threshold-dumped 50 flush-threshold-scheduled 50 taperflush 50 I'd like to collect some files in the disk before writing to tape, but can't collect a full tape's data ... I assume here also "dumporder" plays a role: dumporder "Ssss" - thanks, Stefan
