On 23/04 2002 14:52 Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: > On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 at 1:30pm, Toralf Lund wrote > > > Wouldn't append support be easy to implement? Seems to me that most of > the > > code must be there already (since Amanda writes several dumps to one > tape > > in its normal mode of operation.) > > > Lack of append support is a design decision, AIUI. The thought is that > it's better to not use some of a tape than to overwrite backups because, > for some reason, the tape rewound itself when you weren't looking. > Safety > and redundancy are paramount in backups, not tape usage. YMMV, but > that's > the design decision made with amanda (which I happen to agree with). Yes, maybe a good decision. (Although the purchase of new tapes and the management of all of them do add up to a non-negligible cost.)
I'd really prefer an "auto flush" mode to append support (I can't see any need for both). That should be easy to write as well, and I can't see any problems associated with it, in fact, I think it would increase the safety quite a bit. > > If you want to fill tapes to the max, then add the disk usages up by hand > > and 'amadmin force' enough filesystems each night to fill the tape. I've also thought about reducing runspercycle a bit, and risk not getting everything included - but of course run additional amdumps when necessary, or even have extra ones started automatically, but I'm not quite sure how it would work out in practise. - Toralf
