On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 07:30:34PM -0400, Jean-Louis Martineau wrote: > > I'm not using a holding disk at all - it doesn't seem to make sense when > > using the file: device. Perhaps I'm wrong there ? I don't know enough bout > > amanda's architecture. Perhaps it is a good idea to use a holding disk, even > > with the file: device, because of the ineraction between dumpers and tapers ? > > PARALLELISM > > Without holding disk, your dump will be done sequentially, with a holding > disk, they will be done in parallel.
OK - there's my reason to have a holding disk. But now I've a situation where the dumps are being done to disk (the holding disk) and then copied to tape (but with the file: device, actually disk) and then deleted. It would obviously be much more efficient to use the same partition for holding disk as for the file: device, then all that the taper process would have to do would be a simple mv, rather than a copy (of an often quite large file) followed by a delete. But perhaps this is rather too large a change to put into 2.4 ? Kindest regards, Niall O Broin