On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 01:00:39PM -0600, Tracy Di Marco White wrote: > On 12/27/05, Chris Huebsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Dec 2005, Tracy Di Marco White wrote: > > > > > We've been adding several 1.2+ TB servers, and it has become no longer > > > reasonable to put a tape drive on every server, as we had been doing. > > > > You do not have a tape drive on every server. AFS Backup can send its > > backup via network to an other afs-backup-server. > > Right. I started using that on our new servers that we added before > the new backup server was in production. > > > > Our full backups were taking longer than a day, sometimes three or > > > four days, and things were set up so that it was more complicated to > > > do incremental backups while the full backups were running. > > > > This is really ugly. Did you evaluate the reason for that? Are the disks > > to slow, or the tape-drives or the system-bus of your server machines? > > AFS seemed to be our bottleneck.
On my systems, the volserver would max out at around 5MB/sec. Especially on volumes with lots of small files. We moved to using amanda-afs which spools to disk first, then dumps to tape. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
