On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 10:24:17PM -0500, Dan Debertin wrote:
> One of my client hosts has a drive that is larger than my holding disk
> -- drive is 18G, holdingdisk is only 4G. No, I can't swap them, and
> no, I'd rather not buy a bigger disk right now.
>
> I would have thought that Amanda would
One of my client hosts has a drive that is larger than my holding disk
-- drive is 18G, holdingdisk is only 4G. No, I can't swap them, and
no, I'd rather not buy a bigger disk right now.
I would have thought that Amanda would dump the client to the
holdingdisk in 1G chunks (isn't that what the "c
At 06:37 AM 4/12/2002, Brad Tilley wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>This is more a samba issue than an amanda issue, but I thought someone
>here may have ran into it already:
>
>The NT domains at my university are being migrated to 2000 domains...
>this means they'll be using the new Active Directory structu
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 13/04 2002 01:58 John R. Jackson wrote:
> >Wouldn't it be simpler to just set a 'starttime' value for all the
> >'unimportant' disks so that all the dumpers will do the 'important'
> >ones first?
>
> But, but, but .. if it doesn't involve a pipe, how can it be Unix??? :-)
>
> Yes, starttime
At 12:58 15.04.02 -0400, Jon LaBadie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>amanda prefers real host names, both in the .amandahosts and in the disklist.
>Try to avoid "localhost".
OK, done. Now, the FQDN is set. But the error is the same.
>I may be wrong, but I think the .amandahost file is supposed to be
As far as I know, Samba won't change that bit just because it's tar that's
asking for the file instead of a user. gnutar has its own mechanism
(gnutar-lists) for tracking which files should be backed up during an
incremental.
So to answer your questions:
1) I don't think so
2) Nothing
If we co
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 at 1:52am, Niall O Broin wrote
> What user should amanda run as when using tar as the dumping program ? I
> know that it should run as its own special user (usu. amanda) when using
> dump because then amanda can have full dump rights by making the user a
> member of the disk g
I am getting the followong error in /var/log/amanda/logMMDD.NN when trying
to run amdump:
INFO planner Adding new disk xxx:sda1.
INFO planner Adding new disk xxx:sda5.
FAIL planner bzncs03 sda5 20020415 0 [missing result for sda5 in xxx response]
FAIL planner bzncs03 sda1 2002041
I am trying to figure something and am looking for assistance. I have
checked the newsgroups without success.
The question is: When I backup an NT/2000 share does amanda/tar even touch
the archive bit on a file?? Can someone explain exactly what happens??
-
I wrote:
> I'm now wondering if the problem has to do with
> having more than one dumper dumping at the same time -- I
> think that it might be that some of the partitions are
> on the same disk, and perhaps there is a conflict with dump?
> I will try using the "spindle" values in the disklist to
I escaped HPUX before it got to 11, so my knowledge might be
outdated, but HPUX 10 had its own library control program named
"mc". This worked sufficiently well that I was able to write my
own changer script to interface amanda to mc. If you like I
could probably dig out a copy for you. I just
Hello,
On two occasions this week I have received two Amanda mail report emails
at the completion of my dump. Both emails were identical in every way. I
am running amanda 2.4.2p2. Has anyone else seen this behavior? Thanks
in advance.
Andrew Hall
We have an SDLT drive that we'd like to use for full backups, but a small
DDS2 drive for incrementals. The incrementals tend to be very small since
we're a small research group, so it's a waste to do incrementals to the super
large SDLT tapes.
What I have setup now is 2 configurations, 1 t
15 matches
Mail list logo
