On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 01:50:15PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Tuesday 12 April 2005 10:50, Salada, Duncan S. wrote: > >Actually, I'm not using a holding disk at all. I had no idea that I > > could be shortening the life of the tape drive by not using one. > > So, that's probably the source of my problem then? > The idea behind the holding disk (which really shouldn't be on the > same controller as the disk drive because of bus contention issues) > is that if the drive is waiting on data and stops, it will not > restart until the next file to be written is wholely in the holding > disk, at which point the copy can then take place at the drives > natural speed.
My current amanda server lives on one big 1.4TB partition on an SATA hardware raid controller. Copying from the holding disk to file-tapes on the same device has so far been limited to about 15MB/s. This seems quite slow to me. Does amanda add any overhead above a simple copy on the same device? An hdparm -t on this system when it's idle gives around 58MB/s. I want to add a second SATA controller, fill up the remaining 4 drive bays and move / and the holding disk to this separate raid. I expect this set up will provide better performance. But, I want to ask if anyone here has experience with a similar settup. Are there pci bus limitations that would get in the way of the potential benefits? other issues to consider? -- Eric Dantan Rzewnicki | Systems Administrator Technical Operations Division | Radio Free Asia 2025 M Street, NW | Washington, DC 20036 | 202-530-4900 CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]