On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:43:12AM -0800, John Oliver wrote:
> The sudden jump in the size of this backup was caused when I moved the
> holdingdisk. It didn't occur to me that I was moving it on to the
> filesystem I was backing up... :-) I just added /hold to the exclude
> file. So, backups wil
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 02:27:18PM -0500, Matt Hyclak wrote:
> You're getting your math confused, I think. If your tapetype defines
> compression, then what is in your holding disk is already compressed. Your
> tape drive should be in non-compression mode then and should hold 20GB of
> *already com
On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 01:03 PM, John Oliver wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 09:10:35PM -0500, Jon LaBadie wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 03:49:32PM -0800, John Oliver wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 06:14:37PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
Throw in that marketing is usually a bit optimisti
--On Monday, February 24, 2003 10:03:53 -0800 John Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 09:10:35PM -0500, Jon LaBadie wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 03:49:32PM -0800, John Oliver wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 06:14:37PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> > Throw in that marketi
On Mon February 24 2003 13:03, John Oliver wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 09:10:35PM -0500, Jon LaBadie wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 03:49:32PM -0800, John Oliver wrote:
>> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 06:14:37PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> > > Throw in that marketing is usually a bit optimist
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:03:53AM -0800, John Oliver wrote:
>
> Hopefully, this issue will be resolved in a couple of weeks when I get a
> DLT7000 library in here. But I would like to understand the basic issue
> here... I don't want to be limited to 35GB with a unit that should be
> able to app
er than
the 7GB native tapes I'm using. After compression, it was only about
4.8GB, and so fit on one tape.
Is that clearer?
Going back to your initial problem, the question you have to be asking
yourself is why was the level 1 backup of that filesystem over 9GB big
after compression?
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 02:42:31PM -0800, Jay Lessert wrote:
> > > See also "got result" in amdump.1, it'll tell you if there's any
> > > difference between a level0 and level1 estimate.
> >
> > planner: time 10.451: got result for host backup disk /dev/hda1: 0 ->
> > 21156480K, 1 -> 19996640K, 2
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 07:48:13PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> As someone else mentioned, much of that particular backup run was
> level 0. Lets do another experiment, what do you get (post it
> please) when you do an "amadmin /config/ balance"?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# su amanda -c "amadmin D
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 09:10:35PM -0500, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 03:49:32PM -0800, John Oliver wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 06:14:37PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >
> > > Throw in that marketing is usually a bit optimistic in saying its a
> > > 20 gigger without compr
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 05:06:08PM -0800, Jay Lessert wrote:
> [Posted and Cc'ed]
Why? I subscribe... :-)
> My last posting on this thread, we're in tapeout crunch right now...
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 03:43:13PM -0800, John Oliver wrote:
> > No, not really... :-) My tapes are 20GB without
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 03:49:32PM -0800, John Oliver wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 06:14:37PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> > Throw in that marketing is usually a bit optimistic in saying its a
> > 20 gigger without compression, and that always needs a fudge factor
> > when actually estimat
[Posted and Cc'ed]
My last posting on this thread, we're in tapeout crunch right now...
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 03:43:13PM -0800, John Oliver wrote:
> No, not really... :-) My tapes are 20GB without compression. I'm
> telling amanda to use compression. It looks like it's saying it is.
And it
On Fri February 21 2003 18:49, John Oliver wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 06:14:37PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> Humm, if thats a 40gig tape (with compression) it would be about
>> a 20 gigger without. And if hardware compression is also
>> enabled, it would not be unusual to over-run the EOT b
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 06:14:37PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Humm, if thats a 40gig tape (with compression) it would be about a
> 20 gigger without. And if hardware compression is also enabled, it
> would not be unusual to over-run the EOT because the compressed
> stuff you are sending it wi
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 02:58:16PM -0800, Jay Lessert wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 02:26:22PM -0800, John Oliver wrote:
> > > Since we're seeing 18 fulls and 1 daily, it smells like you're dumping
> > > a whole bunch of new DLE's on amanda at the same time? If so, you'll
> > > probably be OK t
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 02:42:31PM -0800, Jay Lessert wrote:
> [posted and Cc'ed]
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 02:13:26PM -0800, John Oliver wrote:
> > > see "GENERATING SCHEDULE" in logdir/amdump.1.
> >
> > DUMP backup feff9f00 /dev/hda1 20030221 0 1 2003:2:19:10:38:53 10995392 6305
>
> So 1
On Fri February 21 2003 14:51, John Oliver wrote:
>I got this report from amanda. It looks to me like it's reporting
> that it used 48.9% of the tape (a DLT 4000 20/40GB), but that it
> ran out of space.
>
>
>These dumps were to tape Indyme008.
>*** A TAPE ERROR OCCURRED: [[writing file: No space
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 02:26:22PM -0800, John Oliver wrote:
> > Since we're seeing 18 fulls and 1 daily, it smells like you're dumping
> > a whole bunch of new DLE's on amanda at the same time? If so, you'll
> > probably be OK tonight, just don't put any more new DLE's in.
>
> "DLE"?
"disklist
[posted and Cc'ed]
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 02:13:26PM -0800, John Oliver wrote:
> > see "GENERATING SCHEDULE" in logdir/amdump.1.
>
> DUMP backup feff9f00 /dev/hda1 20030221 0 1 2003:2:19:10:38:53 10995392 6305
So 10.9GB on a level 1, right? And amanda apparently thought that
would *barely*
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 04:44:37PM -0500, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> Well, I have no idea how much of that 21GB changed -- have a look at the
> estimate which will be in /tmp/amanda/sendsize*debug and in an amdump.N
> file. Also, only 10GB or so was written to tape from that fs. It also
> de
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 01:23:53PM -0800, Jay Lessert wrote:
> This is telling you what actually got on the tape, or on holdingdisk.
> But unless I'm a bozo, (always a good possibility) your disklist is >18
> entries long, correct?
There are 19 entries in the disklist currently.
> So the 19th DLE
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 01:37:32PM -0800, Jay Lessert wrote:
> What was the estimate/plan for backup:/dev/hda1? Level and size,
> see "GENERATING SCHEDULE" in logdir/amdump.1.
DUMP backup feff9f00 /dev/hda1 20030221 0 1 2003:2:19:10:38:53
10995392 6305
> Confirm you've got 'record yes', and
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 01:08:10PM -0800, John Oliver wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 03:46:44PM -0500, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 at 11:51am, John Oliver wrote
> >
> > > I got this report from amanda. It looks to me like it's reporting that
> > > it used 48.9% of the tap
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 01:08:10PM -0800, John Oliver wrote:
> Why is it, then, that 17 filesystems compressed to 10GB, but this one
No, 18 filesystems compressed to 10GB, problem was on the 19th, right?
> filesystem isn't being compressed at all, apparently?
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# df
> Fi
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 at 1:08pm, John Oliver wrote
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 03:46:44PM -0500, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 at 11:51am, John Oliver wrote
> >
> > > I got this report from amanda. It looks to me like it's reporting that
> > > it used 48.9% of the tape (a DLT 40
[posted and Cc'ed]
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 11:51:59AM -0800, John Oliver wrote:
> I got this report from amanda. It looks to me like it's reporting that
> it used 48.9% of the tape (a DLT 4000 20/40GB), but that it ran out of
> space.
Let's see
> Total Full
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 03:46:44PM -0500, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 at 11:51am, John Oliver wrote
>
> > I got this report from amanda. It looks to me like it's reporting that
> > it used 48.9% of the tape (a DLT 4000 20/40GB), but that it ran out of
> > space.
>
> Not qu
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 at 11:51am, John Oliver wrote
> I got this report from amanda. It looks to me like it's reporting that
> it used 48.9% of the tape (a DLT 4000 20/40GB), but that it ran out of
> space.
Not quite. 48.9% of the tape was filled successfully. However...
> FAILURE AND STRANGE
I got this report from amanda. It looks to me like it's reporting that
it used 48.9% of the tape (a DLT 4000 20/40GB), but that it ran out of
space.
These dumps were to tape Indyme008.
*** A TAPE ERROR OCCURRED: [[writing file: No space left on device]].
Some dumps may have been left in the ho
30 matches
Mail list logo
