Here's a bad idea for you: Install Amanda server on both the NFS server and
the tape server; Run amdump on the NFS server using whatever configuration
you'd like, but don't let it dump to tape; use the tape server to back up
the NFS server at level 0 every time; after the tape server is done, tell
the NFS server to amflush to /dev/null. It's not pretty, and restores are
cumbersome, but it would accomplish the mission.
Of course, so would moving the tape drive(s) to the NFS server. Is that a
possibility?
-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Worrall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 5:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NFS mounted holding disk
>To: Anthony Worrall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: NFS mounted holding disk
>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:51:17 -0400
>From: Paul Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Scanner: exiscan *14pWpZ-0000BM-00*1pxFlM.Ffuc*
http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/
>
>
>In a message dated: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:42:13 BST
>Anthony Worrall said:
>
>>One reason would be the NFS server has a 1Gb interface and the clients and
>>tape server have only 100Mb.
>
>Okay, so now you're saturating the 100Mb interface on the tape server
>twice? I still don't see the advantage in this.
That is why I would like the clients to dump directly to the holding disk
without the data going via the tape server.
Even so give the choice between dumping to an NFS mounted holding disk and
dumping directly to tape the former seems to be faster.
Of course having a big holding disk on the tape server would be even better.
>--
>
>Seeya,
>Paul
>----
> It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
> but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away.
>
> If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!
>
>
Anthony Worrall
The University of Reading,
Department of Computer Science,
Whiteknights, PO Box 225
Reading,
Berkshire, UK
RG6 6AY
Tel: +44 (0)1189 318610
Fax: +44 (0)1189 751994
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
