On Apr 18, 2001, Julian R C Briggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do others archive a set of large filesystems onto a set of small
> tapes?
If filesystems are larger than tapes, telling Amanda to back them up
as individual sub-directories with GNU tar.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', se
>From: Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 19 Apr 2001 18:48:47 -0300
>On Apr 18, 2001, Julian R C Briggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> How do others archive a set of large filesystems onto a set of small
>> tapes?
>
>If filesystems are larger than tapes, telling Amanda to back them up
>a
John,
Thanks for your further comments.
>>Thanks. Yes I have upgraded to 2.4.2p2 (the advfs.patch is not
>>applicable).
>
>The advfs.patch does more than just fix problems with advfs. It also
>deals with some Linux LABEL= issues in /etc/fstab. It may still not
>apply to your setup, but just i
>Thanks. Yes I have upgraded to 2.4.2p2 (the advfs.patch is not
>applicable).
The advfs.patch does more than just fix problems with advfs. It also
deals with some Linux LABEL= issues in /etc/fstab. It may still not
apply to your setup, but just in case.
>My reading of the amanda man page for
John,
Thanks for your comments.
>>... I will try upgrading to 2.4.2.
>
>Note that the current release is 2.4.2p2, and there is a patch beyond
>that on the patches web page which may or may not apply to your
site.
Thanks. Yes I have upgraded to 2.4.2p2 (the advfs.patch is not
applicable).
>>.
>I've seen it happen when planner thinks the tape is full, and it
>decides to switch to incrementals for some of the disks. ...
Yeah, I guess that would do it. I always give Amanda an insanely large
number of tapes (runtapes) to work with for archival to make sure this
situation doesn't happen.
>... I will try upgrading to 2.4.2.
Note that the current release is 2.4.2p2, and there is a patch beyond
that on the patches web page which may or may not apply to your site.
>... the appended amdump output shows incremental dumps.
You didn't post the whole report, so it's a little hard to
John and Paul, Thanks for your responses.
>>Sadly the Amanda 2.4.1 change log (fragment appended) shows
>>"strategy noinc" is not implemented yet (see below).
>John R. Jackson, Technical Software Specialist, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>But it does appear to be in 2.4.2.
Great. I will try upgrading to 2
"John R. Jackson" wrote:
> >Using "dumpcycle 0" I still see incrementals in the archive backup.
>
> Really? Under what circumstances? This is usually all I do to get an
> archive such as you're trying to do.
I've seen it happen when planner thinks the tape is full, and it
decides to switch t
r to 2.4.1.
-Original Message-
From: John R. Jackson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 2:27 PM
To: Julian R C Briggs
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: want only full dumps (strategy noinc)
>Sadly the Amanda 2.4.1 change log (fragment appended) shows
>"s
>Sadly the Amanda 2.4.1 change log (fragment appended) shows
>"strategy noinc" is not implemented yet (see below).
But it does appear to be in 2.4.2.
>Using "dumpcycle 0" I still see incrementals in the archive backup.
Really? Under what circumstances? This is usually all I do to get an
archi
Dear All,
I want to use "strategy noinc" with an "archive" configuration, to
get full dumps only.
We run 2 configurations:
1. "normal" daily backup with a dumpcycle of 25 tapes (~1 month).
2. "archive" weekly backup with a dumpcycle of 150 tapes (~3 years).
We dump ~120Gb onto With software
12 matches
Mail list logo
