Hi, Paul, on Dienstag, 18. Mai 2004 at 23:43 you wrote to amanda-users:
PB> Don't forget that such a setup makes restores a PITA: You are definitely right with this ;-) This seem to be just some AMANDA-fantasies ... PB> First you make "vtapes", just a set of large files with a PB> strange name. When you have collected enough of these files, PB> and make a backup with amdump, and then you erase those "vtapes", PB> and together probably their indexes (or jump through hoops to PB> avoid this). PB> Now you don't have a real index of the files on tape, only a list PB> of hostnames-filesystems; even the dates are missing (because PB> you put a lot of days on one tape). PB> To restore, you first have to restore the image from tape, PB> to get the "vtape" back, then you have to run restore again from PB> that "vtape". PB> In real life, you probably need to try a few times, because you're PB> just guessing on which tape that file actually is. PB> Those vtapes are probably quiet large. First wait 2 hours for PB> one 40 GB tape to read to disk, and then again an hour or so PB> to restore from that vtape. And again, if you mistyped the name PB> of the file, or if you want to see if the file was there a day PB> earlier. Sucks. PB> Doing a backup to holdingdisk instead of vtapes avoids this PB> backup-of-backup-images; amflush migrates the images from disk PB> to tape instead, and keeps the indexes up to date. We all like that, don't we? PB> While creating backups should be easy, *restoring* from backups PB> should be even more straightforward: it's then that you're working PB> under high pressure (disk crash? important file erased? agry PB> users waiting etc.) Brrr ... ;-) I would just suggest a conventional setup using the changer. -- best regards, Stefan Stefan G. Weichinger mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]