Deb
> On Jan 8, 2014, at 4:57 PM, "Gene Heskett" wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 08 January 2014 17:47:03 Jon LaBadie did opine:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 02:11:15PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 08 January 2014 13:13:43 Brian Cuttler did opine:
>> ...
>>
Also - Isn't there an
On Wednesday 08 January 2014 17:47:03 Jon LaBadie did opine:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 02:11:15PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Wednesday 08 January 2014 13:13:43 Brian Cuttler did opine:
> ...
>
> > > Also - Isn't there another level of tape header that needs to be
> > > cleared? Isn't re-wr
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 02:11:15PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 January 2014 13:13:43 Brian Cuttler did opine:
>
...
> > Also - Isn't there another level of tape header that needs to be
> > cleared? Isn't re-writing the tape with compression off a little
> > bit of a trick? If you
On Wednesday 08 January 2014 14:13:36 Jon LaBadie did opine:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 11:37:44AM -0500, Brian Cuttler wrote:
> ...
>
> > The LTO is advertised as having block level decision making on
> > compression so that it doesn't expand the data, wonder if that
> > is not quite true.
>
> M
a error message...
> > > I think I need to run a cleaning tape and keep an eye on this.
> >
> > I was about to chime in but you bet me to it.
> > Indeed LTO4 is 800GB.
> >
> > Now, did you verify that you're in fact HW not using compression
> > enabled? Havi
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 11:37:44AM -0500, Brian Cuttler wrote:
...
>
> The LTO is advertised as having block level decision making on
> compression so that it doesn't expand the data, wonder if that
> is not quite true.
My experience is limited to LTO-1, but I found amtapetype gave
'exactly' the
; > > I think I need to run a cleaning tape and keep an eye on this.
> >
> > I was about to chime in but you bet me to it.
> > Indeed LTO4 is 800GB.
> >
> > Now, did you verify that you're in fact HW not using compression
> > enabled? Having both hw a
ut to chime in but you bet me to it.
> Indeed LTO4 is 800GB.
>
> Now, did you verify that you're in fact HW not using compression
> enabled? Having both hw and sw compression can actually lead to
> smaller tape usage and waste of cpu cycles.
> I don't know about Solaris
d? Having both hw and sw compression can actually lead to
smaller tape usage and waste of cpu cycles.
I don't know about Solaris but on my Linux servers the command
tapeinfo from the mtx package will tell me You must pass it the
generic scsi device of the tape drive. In my case, it's /de
nk you/rookie mistake,
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> >On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 10:06:54AM -0500, Jean-Louis Martineau wrote:
> >>Brian,
> >>
> >>Maybe you defined the tape larger than it is?
> >>
of data?
Are you using hardware compression?
Jean-Louis
On 01/08/2014 09:13 AM, Brian Cuttler wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this tape usage... 18% plus 75% < 100%, isn't it?
Amanda 3.3.0
Solaris 10x86
tapes are DLT IV
This, using a second tape, is new behaivor.
I did try a newer
4 09:13 AM, Brian Cuttler wrote:
> >I'm not sure I understand this tape usage... 18% plus 75% < 100%, isn't it?
> >
> >Amanda 3.3.0
> >Solaris 10x86
> >tapes are DLT IV
> >
> >This, using a second tape, is new behaivor.
> >
> >I di
Brian,
Maybe you defined the tape larger than it is?
Are you sure the tape can hold 80M of data?
Are you using hardware compression?
Jean-Louis
On 01/08/2014 09:13 AM, Brian Cuttler wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this tape usage... 18% plus 75% < 100%, isn't it?
Amanda
I'm not sure I understand this tape usage... 18% plus 75% < 100%, isn't it?
Amanda 3.3.0
Solaris 10x86
tapes are DLT IV
This, using a second tape, is new behaivor.
I did try a newer amanda but the dump clients wouldn't die when
they needed two, amanda never completed and
r writing: 49968740m968774m (100.00%) ( 52.22%)
> >> wait to flush : 0 0m 0m (100.00%) ( 0.00%)
> >> writing to tape : 1886469m886469m (100.00%) ( 47.78%)
> >> failed to tape : 0 0m 0m ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%)
> >> t
t; taper status: Writing bigbrain:BIG_BRAIN_pm3903_postmortem_mnc_original
>> taper qlen: 49
>>
>> plus other stats.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> jf
>>
>>
>>> Jean-Louis
>>>
>>> Jean-Francois Malouin wrote:
>>>
wrote:
Hi,
With amanda-3.1 seems we lost the tape usage in the summary report
output by amstatus. Prior versions were showning which tape has been
used along with its usage like (2.6.1p2):
SUMMARY part real estimated
size size
partition
m606853m (100.00%) ( 24.65%)
12 dumpers idle : no-dumpers
taper status: Writing bigbrain:BIG_BRAIN_pm3903_postmortem_mnc_original
taper qlen: 49
plus other stats.
Thanks,
jf
>
> Jean-Louis
>
> Jean-Francois Malouin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> With amanda-3.1 seems we lost
Hi Jean-François,
Try the attached patch, it will works with newer log files only.
Thanks for reporting the bug.
Jean-Louis
Jean-Francois Malouin wrote:
Hi,
With amanda-3.1 seems we lost the tape usage in the summary report
output by amstatus. Prior versions were showning which tape has been
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Jean-Francois Malouin
wrote:
> taped : 14 341794m 341794m (100.00%) ( 28.18%)
> tape 1 : 14 520994m 520994m (134.96%) av24-2_right2_V00023L3
> (128 chunks)
>
> I liked that feature. Possible to get it back?
In particular, the last
Hi,
With amanda-3.1 seems we lost the tape usage in the summary report
output by amstatus. Prior versions were showning which tape has been
used along with its usage like (2.6.1p2):
SUMMARY part real estimated
size size
partition : 35
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-amanda-us...@amanda.org [mailto:owner-amanda-
> us...@amanda.org] On Behalf Of Gene Heskett
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 11:33 AM
> To: amanda-users@amanda.org
> Subject: Re: Tape Usage Question
>
>
> On Wednesday 07
On Wednesday 07 July 2010, McGraw, Robert P wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: owner-amanda-us...@amanda.org [mailto:owner-amanda-
>> us...@amanda.org] On Behalf Of Gene Heskett
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 11:33 AM
>> To: amanda-users@amanda.org
>&
On Wednesday 07 July 2010, McGraw, Robert P wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: djmit...@gmail.com [mailto:djmit...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
>> Dustin J. Mitchell
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 1:14 AM
>> To: McGraw, Robert P
>> Cc: amanda-users@a
> -Original Message-
> From: djmit...@gmail.com [mailto:djmit...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Dustin J. Mitchell
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 1:14 AM
> To: McGraw, Robert P
> Cc: amanda-users@amanda.org
> Subject: Re: Tape Usage Question
>
>
> On Tue, J
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:56 PM, McGraw, Robert P wrote:
> In my case there were several dump image that could have been written to the
> tape. Amanda did not seem to pick the largest dump image that would fit on
> the tape.
Well, bear in mind that the tape drive does not give any indication of
From: djmit...@gmail.com [djmit...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Dustin J. Mitchell
[dus...@zmanda.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 1:00 PM
To: McGraw, Robert P
Cc: amanda-users@amanda.org
Subject: Re: Tape Usage Question
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 11:22 AM, McGraw, Robert P wrote:
> Why would ama
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 11:22 AM, McGraw, Robert P wrote:
> Why would amanda pick a 37GB file when there is only ~28GB left on the tape
> and when there were plenty of files waiting to go to tape that were less than
> 28GB?
Amanda doesn't track a notion of "how much space is left on the tape"
-
I am running Amanda 3.1.1 on a Sun Solaris 10 x86 server.
MY QUESTION:
As you can see below when tape D01004 was at 92% and amanda was looking for a
file to finish writing to the remainder of the tape, amanda picked a file that
was 37GB in size which is
much greater than the remaining size o
Gordon J. Mills III wrote:
Hello all. I have been off of the list for a while and recently rejoined. I
have had some strange behavior lately with some tapes. Amanda has been using
2 tapes when the backup could have easily fit on one tape.
Here is the message in the mail report:
taper: tape TAP
Hello all. I have been off of the list for a while and recently rejoined. I
have had some strange behavior lately with some tapes. Amanda has been using
2 tapes when the backup could have easily fit on one tape.
Here is the message in the mail report:
taper: tape TAPE07 kb 4651360 fm 6 writing fil
to tape as
it completes.
I have no idea what the algorithm is for DLE taping if there
are multiple completed DLEs in the work area.
I have never been able to figure out the tape ordering in when
amflush was being run.
Is there any sort of taper delay algorithm to optimize tape usage ?
Look i
s from more than one date (run?) are present, oldest are
all done before newer. Withing those groups there is a 'taperalgo'
parameter controlling which is selected.
>
> Is there any sort of taper delay algorithm to optimize tape usage ?
>
Should be, look back a few days f
idea what the algorithm is for DLE taping if there
are multiple completed DLEs in the work area.
I have never been able to figure out the tape ordering in when
amflush was being run.
Is there any sort of taper delay algorithm to optimize tape usage ?
In the specific case here - initial look at
On 2006-10-10 16:36, Steven Settlemyre wrote:
> Dear List,
>
> I have recently stepped into an admin role where amanda is already set
> up. I have a lot of questions, but I'll try to limit myself. I'm running
> Amanda 2.5.0p2 on a Debian system. With an 8-tape changer.
>
> 1) How do I find out if
Dear List,
I have recently stepped into an admin role where amanda is already set
up. I have a lot of questions, but I'll try to limit myself. I'm running
Amanda 2.5.0p2 on a Debian system. With an 8-tape changer.
1) How do I find out if hardware compression is turned on?
2) Why does the amr
enance scripts.
You're probably right, but with that much HD rotating, and after
experimenting A LOT, the scripts really made the job a lot easier, not only
on the movement of each HD but also on retrieving data.
If there is anything else let me know.
Thanks for your interest.
Mario Lobo
--
View t
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 06:49:17AM -0700, Mario Lobo (sent by Nabble.com) wrote:
>
> First, thanks for the aswers and coments.
>
> Wonderful tip !!
>
> >Perhaps change your runtapes to "2" so no more than 2 tapes will be used
> >per amdump run. Then the 3.8 GB will be retained on the holding
theme here. They made my job really easier.
Again thanks for the help
Mario Lobo
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/About-tape-usage-t1725862.html#a4693734
Sent from the Amanda - Users forum at Nabble.com.
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 05:29:36PM -0700, Mario Lobo (sent by Nabble.com) wrote:
>
> Hi;
>
> I have a 400 Gig HD divided into 6 56 Gig virtual tapes. A full dump of all
> 9 servers on our network, which runs perfectly, fills tape1 and tape2 and
> 3.8 Gigs of tape3. When the full dump is finished,
compress server fast
priority high
fallback_splitsize 128m
# tape_splitsize 7000m
# split_diskbuffer "/amanda/split"
}
define dumptype full-windows {
global
program "GNUTAR"
comment "FULL Windows dump with tar and no compress
program "GNUTAR"
comment "FULL Windows dump with tar and no compression"
options no-compress
priority high
fallback_splitsize 128m
# tape_splitsize 7000m
# split_diskbuffer "/amanda/split"
}
Thanks
Mario Lobo
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/About-tape-usage-t1725862.html#a4689229
Sent from the Amanda - Users forum at Nabble.com.
On 2006-03-24 09:00, Olivier Nicole wrote:
In the NOTES section you find the value where Amanda bumped into EOT:
Now I have problem with this:
STATISTICS:
Output Size (meg)7728.0 7492.9 235.1
This is not about the tape, but the amount that was dumped.
Is correct, I can c
> In the NOTES section you find the value where Amanda bumped into EOT:
Now I have problem with this:
STATISTICS:
Output Size (meg)7728.0 7492.9 235.1
Is correct, I can check that there is about 8GB written on that tape.
NOTES:
taper: tape CSIM-set-3-00 kb 1775424 fm 11 writ
On 2006-03-24 05:01, Michael Loftis wrote:
--On March 24, 2006 10:35:38 AM +0700 Olivier Nicole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Uhm...Yes it does...
Just after the STATISTICS section you should have (by default):
My mistake, it sure is there, but I never noticed it :(
NP...note that those nu
--On March 24, 2006 10:35:38 AM +0700 Olivier Nicole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Uhm...Yes it does...
Just after the STATISTICS section you should have (by default):
My mistake, it sure is there, but I never noticed it :(
NP...note that those numbers are just the amount of successfully ta
> Uhm...Yes it does...
> Just after the STATISTICS section you should have (by default):
My mistake, it sure is there, but I never noticed it :(
Thank you,
Olivier
2006 10:03:45 AM +0700 Olivier Nicole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hello,
Is there a way to have the total tape usage in Amanda report?
It happens that sometime Amanda runs out of tape after 50 GB (which is
normal for a 50GB SLR100 tape) but sometime only after 8GB which
clearly means
Hello,
Is there a way to have the total tape usage in Amanda report?
It happens that sometime Amanda runs out of tape after 50 GB (which is
normal for a 50GB SLR100 tape) but sometime only after 8GB which
clearly means there is a problem. But Amanda reports do not show any
total and I have to
On Monday 06 February 2006 07:19, Anthony Worrall wrote:
>Hi
>
>Is there an easy way to see what the usage of the tapes are?
>
>There seem to be was of doing this for a host or DLE but not a tape.
>
>Cheers
>
>Anthony Worrall
There is a summary line at the top left of the printout page, and I
bel
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 12:19:38PM +, Anthony Worrall wrote:
> Is there an easy way to see what the usage of the tapes are?
>
> There seem to be was of doing this for a host or DLE but not a tape.
Have you checked the script I posted a while ago to this list? Take a
look at http://groups.ya
Anthony Worrall schrieb:
Hi
Is there an easy way to see what the usage of the tapes are?
Please don't hijack threads.
Thanks, Stefan.
Anthony Worrall wrote:
Hi
Is there an easy way to see what the usage of the tapes are?
There seem to be was of doing this for a host or DLE but not a tape.
In my report:
USAGE BY TAPE:
Label Time Size %NbNc
Daily-26 3:27 12582144k 100.0 02
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 12:19, Anthony Worrall wrote:
> Hi
>
> Is there an easy way to see what the usage of the tapes are?
>
> There seem to be was of doing this for a host or DLE but not a tape.
>
> Cheers
>
> Anthony Worrall
>
>
Here is a dirty way to do it
grep "writing end marker" amdump*
Hi
Is there an easy way to see what the usage of the tapes are?
There seem to be was of doing this for a host or DLE but not a tape.
Cheers
Anthony Worrall
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 at 12:52pm, Brian Cuttler wrote
> My understanding that no single client should be asked to reply to
> more than one server (at any given time) still holds though
> ie: all of the disks on client A should be sent to the server 2
> never: some DLE on client A to server 1 and
Joshua,
Thanks - understanding grows daily.
I'd previously (and erroniously) understood that concurrent
amanda-server usage on a single amanda-server would cause
socket conflict if not configured to use separate amanda
binaries with different port ranges.
My understanding that no single client
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 at 12:12pm, Brian Cuttler wrote
> Isn't there a possiblity of port conflict on the server ?
Not that I'm aware of. The server checks for open ports before telling
the clients (in the UDP packets) what ports to communicate with the server
on. There *is* the possibility of p
Isn't there a possiblity of port conflict on the server ?
Don't you have to have separate binaries on the server for
the different configs if they are accessing the same ethernet
interface ?
I got around this on my site by having one config backup local
disks and another config backing up disks
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 at 12:25pm, Toni Mueller wrote
> I'm looking for the best way to have several drives backing up a
> network in parallel. Eg. while one drive makes a backup of machine M1,
> the next drive saves data from machine M2 and so on. All drives will be
> contained in one library, serve
Hello,
I'm looking for the best way to have several drives backing up a
network in parallel. Eg. while one drive makes a backup of machine M1,
the next drive saves data from machine M2 and so on. All drives will be
contained in one library, served by only one robot. Is this feasible,
or do I hav
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 03:03:22PM +0100, Georg Rehfeld wrote:
> Hello Karsten, Gene, all,
>
Hello Georg,
>
...
> There seem to be no similar figures for taping and the tape speed
> seems to vary largely:
>
> size speedspeed
> MB MB/sgraph
>
> 1021.8***
> 1082.0
On Monday 29 December 2003 09:03, Georg Rehfeld wrote:
>Hello Karsten, Gene, all,
>
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Saturday 20 December 2003 02:30, Georg Rehfeld wrote:
>>> Hallo Karsten, dear Amanda users,
>>>
i am wondering if it is possible to check how much data is
already written in the
Hello Karsten, Gene, all,
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Saturday 20 December 2003 02:30, Georg Rehfeld wrote:
Hallo Karsten, dear Amanda users,
i am wondering if it is possible to check how much data is already
written in the curent run of amdump/amflush.
In the output of amstatus is just an overwiev p
On Sunday 21 December 2003 01:50, Jon LaBadie wrote:
>On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 12:00:42AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Saturday 20 December 2003 18:44, Jon LaBadie wrote:
>> >On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 04:15:20AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> >> IMO, if mods to amanda were required, maybe its time
On Saturday 20 December 2003 18:44, Jon LaBadie wrote:
>On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 04:15:20AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> IMO, if mods to amanda were required, maybe its time to take a
>> long hard look at George Schilling's 'star'. Among other things
>> star can, if the controlling tty sends it a
On Saturday 20 December 2003 02:30, Georg Rehfeld wrote:
>Hallo Karsten, dear Amanda users,
>
>> i am wondering if it is possible to check how much data is already
>> written in the curent run of amdump/amflush.
>>
>> In the output of amstatus is just an overwiev per filesystem, but
>> i am interes
Hallo Karsten, dear Amanda users,
i am wondering if it is possible to check how much data is already
written in the curent run of amdump/amflush.
>
In the output of amstatus is just an overwiev per filesystem, but i am
interested how much of that particular filesystem is already on tape and
for
On Friday 19 December 2003 13:13, Karsten Fuhrmann wrote:
>Hello list,
>i am wondering if it is possible to check how much data is already
>written in the curent run of amdump/amflush.
>In the output of amstatus is just an overwiev per filesystem, but i
> am interested how much of that particular f
Hello list,
i am wondering if it is possible to check how much data is already
written in the curent run of amdump/amflush.
In the output of amstatus is just an overwiev per filesystem, but i am
interested how much of that particular filesystem is already on tape and
for example the estimated ti
Does amanda keep track of how many times a tape has been used?
If not, how difficult would it be to increment a counter in the amanda
tape header? Clearly, at 32kB, there is plenty of room in the header
for this simple matter . . .
What do you think?
--
Best Regards,
mds
mds resource
877.596.
On Friday 18 October 2002 00:06, Huiqun wrote:
>Hi all:
>
>Recently I setup amanda 2.4.p2 on our Solaris system, it seems
> working fine. I'm using a HP DDS2 tape which has a 4GB capacity,
> I got the following tapetype value from this mailing list:
>
>define tapetype HP-DDS2 {
>comment "HP DDS
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 12:06:54PM +0800, Huiqun wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> Recently I setup amanda 2.4.p2 on our Solaris system, it seems working fine.
> I'm using a HP DDS2 tape which has a 4GB capacity, I got the following
> tapetype value from this mailing list:
>
> define tapetype HP-DDS2 {
>
On Friday 18 October 2002 00:06, Huiqun wrote:
>Hi all:
>
>Recently I setup amanda 2.4.p2 on our Solaris system, it seems
> working fine. I'm using a HP DDS2 tape which has a 4GB capacity,
> I got the following tapetype value from this mailing list:
>
>define tapetype HP-DDS2 {
>comment "HP DDS
Hi all:
Recently I setup amanda 2.4.p2 on our Solaris system, it seems working fine.
I'm using a HP DDS2 tape which has a 4GB capacity, I got the following
tapetype value from this mailing list:
define tapetype HP-DDS2 {
comment "HP DDS2"
# data got from amanda email archive
length 37
On Saturday 21 September 2002 08:15, Niall O Broin wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 09:19:43PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> seen it work in practice here, nor do I need it, but my system
>> is only 46gigs, which amanda cheerfully uses about half a 4gig
>> tape per nightly run to back it all up on
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 09:19:43PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> seen it work in practice here, nor do I need it, but my system is
> only 46gigs, which amanda cheerfully uses about half a 4gig tape
> per nightly run to back it all up on a 1 week dumpcycle.
Gene - I've seen you mention this a fe
Jason Greenberg wrote:
>Is there any way to measure how many bytes where written to the tape
>every night? I would like to feed the values to MRTG or something, so I
>can see when I am close to using two tapes per dump.
>
>Also, if the data is available, is it the raw uncompressed bytes, or the
Is there any way to measure how many bytes where written to the tape
every night? I would like to feed the values to MRTG or something, so I
can see when I am close to using two tapes per dump.
Also, if the data is available, is it the raw uncompressed bytes, or the
post-gzipped bytes that are r
On Saturday 14 September 2002 12:44, Jason Greenberg wrote:
>Is there any way to measure how many bytes where written to the
> tape every night? I would like to feed the values to MRTG or
> something, so I can see when I am close to using two tapes per
> dump.
>
>Also, if the data is available, i
On Friday 13 September 2002 13:17, Galen Johnson wrote:
>Jason Greenberg wrote:
>>Is there any way to measure how many bytes where written to the
>> tape every night? I would like to feed the values to MRTG or
>> something, so I can see when I am close to using two tapes per
>> dump.
>>
>>Also, i
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Mike Hogsett wrote:
> Why doesn't amanda use as much tape as I am giving it? I have amanda
> configured to use two tape drives ( AIT SDX1-25C tapes ). My tapetype
> states that the tapes are 24192 Mb in size. It filled the first tape
> and used only used 8+ Gb of the secon
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 at 4:03pm, Tom Beer wrote
> > The quickest way to increase your tape usage is to cut your dumpcycle.
> > Using the same amount of tapes this gives you the two advantages of higher
> > tape usage and greater redundancy.
>
> I thought, that the redund
> The quickest way to increase your tape usage is to cut your dumpcycle.
> Using the same amount of tapes this gives you the two advantages of higher
> tape usage and greater redundancy.
I thought, that the redundancy is provided through the dump levels, so
that amanda backs up only
it did full
> dumps of everything every day (if need be) to get tape usage up to at least
> 50%? It's not like the tapes are huge (DDS3 -- 11.5gigs), and I feel that
> I'm wasting a lot of tape here...
The quickest way to increase your tape usage is to cut your dumpcycle.
Usi
Hi! I've been running amanda now for about 5 weeks (23 days, so really 4
and a half). My dumpcycle is 20 days. Amanda tends to only use about 7% of
the tape. Is there some way I can tell it that I'd much rather it did full
dumps of everything every day (if need be) to get tape usag
I'm guessing that you want to write close to two tapes every night in
order to maximize the frequency of full dumps. As others pointed out,
amanda is striving to balance the required level 0 dumps over the
configured dumpcycle. So, if you want more data as full dumps every
night, you'll need to
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Mike Hogsett wrote:
> Why doesn't amanda use as much tape as I am giving it? I have amanda
> configured to use two tape drives ( AIT SDX1-25C tapes ). My tapetype
> states that the tapes are 24192 Mb in size. It filled the first tape
> and used only used 8+ Gb of the secon
Why doesn't amanda use as much tape as I am giving it? I have amanda
configured to use two tape drives ( AIT SDX1-25C tapes ). My tapetype
states that the tapes are 24192 Mb in size. It filled the first tape
and used only used 8+ Gb of the second. Does amanda ever promote dump
levels or only
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 at 7:52pm, David Galveias wrote
> 1st run (1st week) - full backup using 24 Gb tape
> 2nd run (2nd week) - incremental backup using 2 Gb tape
> 3rd run (3rd week) - incremental backup using 2 Gb tape
> 4th run (4th week) - incremental backup using 2 Gb tape
>
> 1st run (1st we
Hi there.
Here's my situation:
I have sets of 4 tapes (one 24 Gb tape + three 2 Gb tapes) to backup my machines.
I'll have 4 runs per cycle corresponding to the 4 weeks of the month, meaning that i
want to have:
1st run (1st week) - full backup using 24 Gb tape
2nd run (2nd week) - incremental b
>... I looked at amgetconf to
>find the configuration directory but could not find the right entry in
>amanda.conf.
This will do it:
amadmin xx version \
| grep CONFIG_DIR= \
| sed -e 's/.*CONFIG_DIR="//' -e 's/".*//'
I took a note to see if amgetconf could be taught to return some of
"John R. Jackson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> >Please feel free to modify the script. May it save you from worn out
> >tapes at restore time.
>
> A couple of thoughts. Once you know the config directory from above,
> you might just cd there to avoid the duplicated names throughout the
y has been updated. The skript has to be run at least once after each update.
Usage: amanda-tapestats ";exit;fi
if test /etc/amanda/$1/tapelist.long -ot /etc/amanda/$1/tapelist;
then
echo "Amanda tape usage count";
cut -d " " -f 1,2 /etc/amanda/$1/tapelist*|sort|uniq >
94 matches
Mail list logo
