Migrating to Amanda, question 2
At this point my situation is pretty hopeless and I need to accellerate the BRU - Amanda migration, so question 2: CentOS 4.2 or Fedora4? Kernel: CentOS 2.6.9-22 FC4 2.6.15-1.1831_FC4 tar: CentSO tar-1.14-8.RHEL4 FC4 tar-1.15.1-11.FC4 Amanda: CentOS amanda-2.4.4p3-1FC4amanda-backup_server-2.5.0b2-1.fc4 dump/restore: CentOS dump-0.4b39-3.EL4.2 FC4 dump-0.4b40-2 Thanks! -- Enrico Indiogine Parasol Laboratory Texas AM University [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 979-845-3937
Re: Migrating to Amanda, question 2
2006/2/10, Ian Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I recommend Fedora for Amanda, and Debian in general, but you're opening a can of worms by asking people's opinion on the best distro. :-) Thanks for the advise. I was leaning towards FC4 myself because of the latest tar version. I read that tar 1.14 has problems, while 1.13 and 1.15 do not. I agree about the choose distro = can of worms. That is why I only gave 2 options ;-) We are a RedHat shop, thus we can only migrate to CentOS/Scientific Linux and Fedora. I find it interesting that Fedora4 will install the 2.5.0 beta of Amanda. -- Enrico Indiogine Parasol Laboratory Texas AM University [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 979-845-3937
Re: Migrating to Amanda, question 2
On Friday 10 February 2006 11:42, Salvatore Enrico Indiogine wrote: At this point my situation is pretty hopeless and I need to accellerate the BRU - Amanda migration, so question 2: CentOS 4.2 or Fedora4? Essentially this doesn't matter, but see below. Kernel: CentOS 2.6.9-22 FC4 2.6.15-1.1831_FC4 Again, doesn't matter, I've used every linus kernel since forever, currently 2.6.16-rc2. tar: CentSO tar-1.14-8.RHEL4 FC4 tar-1.15.1-11.FC4 CentOS tar-1.14.* is known bad, I'm using 1.15-1 myself, with 1.13-25 installed as a fallback available with a rebuild/reinstall of amanda, a 6 minute job typically... Amanda: CentOS amanda-2.4.4p3-1FC4 amanda-backup_server-2.5.0b2-1.fc4 Using 2.4.5p1, most recent snapshot, no problems of note. No experience with 2.5.0 yet here. For reasons of controlling the configuration, I have never tried to use an rpm/deb of it, always built at least the server from tarballs. However one recently added debian based client is running the debs of an older 2.4.4 with no problems. YMMV, note the caps. dump/restore: CentOS dump-0.4b39-3.EL4.2 FC4 dump-0.4b40-2 Again, it doesn't matter because you should be using tar, not dump. But thats a personal opinion, some are using dump/restore, but tar gives you much more fine-grained control over what you are doing. Thanks! You're welcome, I hope this helps. -- Enrico Indiogine Parasol Laboratory Texas AM University [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 979-845-3937 -- Cheers, Gene People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word 'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
Re: Migrating to Amanda, question 2
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 at 1:22pm, Gene Heskett wrote On Friday 10 February 2006 11:42, Salvatore Enrico Indiogine wrote: tar: CentSO tar-1.14-8.RHEL4 FC4 tar-1.15.1-11.FC4 CentOS tar-1.14.* is known bad, I'm using 1.15-1 myself, with 1.13-25 installed as a fallback available with a rebuild/reinstall of amanda, a 6 minute job typically... Actually, centos-4's tar seems to work just fine. They recently fixed a sparse files bug in it, and it seems quite happy. I've recently done a few multi-TB backup/restores with it with no problem. Or is there something I'm missing? As to centos vs. FC, I prefer centos if only for the longer life cycle and the feeling that it's a bit more tested than FC. That being said, I've never run FC, so take that all with a grain of salt. -- Joshua Baker-LePain Department of Biomedical Engineering Duke University
Re: Migrating to Amanda, question 2
On Friday 10 February 2006 13:40, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 at 1:22pm, Gene Heskett wrote On Friday 10 February 2006 11:42, Salvatore Enrico Indiogine wrote: tar: CentSO tar-1.14-8.RHEL4 FC4 tar-1.15.1-11.FC4 CentOS tar-1.14.* is known bad, I'm using 1.15-1 myself, with 1.13-25 installed as a fallback available with a rebuild/reinstall of amanda, a 6 minute job typically... Actually, centos-4's tar seems to work just fine. They recently fixed a sparse files bug in it, and it seems quite happy. I've recently done a few multi-TB backup/restores with it with no problem. Or is there something I'm missing? Theres a difference in the contents of the header of its output files. OTIH, maybe it can recover with then in place, but other tars cannot. I haven't personally tried to confirm that. Compare their output list when asked for a table of contents of the backup. I think you'll see the difference as 1.14 will have a double sized string of numbers prepended to the filename it outputs. Or at least it did here, and several others also reported problems with it. The one thing I was surprised is that tar development is usually rather glacier like, but 1.14 only lasted a few weeks on the gnu.org ftp site. Something HAD to prompt that knee jerk reaction pace other than global warming. :-) As to centos vs. FC, I prefer centos if only for the longer life cycle and the feeling that it's a bit more tested than FC. That being said, I've never run FC, so take that all with a grain of salt. -- Cheers, Gene People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word 'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
Re: Migrating to Amanda, question 2
Thanks for all the good feedback. I just remembered reading that the 2.6.9 Linux kernel provided by CentOS/RHEL4 has problems with SCSI. That was on a communication from BRU: http://www.bru.com/Server-Linux-Require.html So, it is Fedora4 after all. Enrico
RE: Migrating to Amanda, question 2
Title: RE: Migrating to Amanda, question 2 Yes, it seems to have difficulty recognizing the second SCSI tape drive if you have two. So one of my Spectralogic 2K tape drives is languishing, while the other has all the fun. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Salvatore Enrico Indiogine Sent: Fri 2/10/2006 2:30 PM To: amanda-users@amanda.org Subject: Re: Migrating to Amanda, question 2 Thanks for all the good feedback. I just remembered reading that the 2.6.9 Linux kernel provided by CentOS/RHEL4 has problems with SCSI. That was on a communication from BRU: http://www.bru.com/Server-Linux-Require.html So, it is Fedora4 after all. Enrico
Re: Migrating to Amanda, question 2
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:40:38PM -0500, Joshua Baker-LePain enlightened us: On Friday 10 February 2006 11:42, Salvatore Enrico Indiogine wrote: tar: CentSO tar-1.14-8.RHEL4 FC4 tar-1.15.1-11.FC4 CentOS tar-1.14.* is known bad, I'm using 1.15-1 myself, with 1.13-25 installed as a fallback available with a rebuild/reinstall of amanda, a 6 minute job typically... Actually, centos-4's tar seems to work just fine. They recently fixed a sparse files bug in it, and it seems quite happy. I've recently done a few multi-TB backup/restores with it with no problem. Or is there something I'm missing? As to centos vs. FC, I prefer centos if only for the longer life cycle and the feeling that it's a bit more tested than FC. That being said, I've never run FC, so take that all with a grain of salt. I'll second Joshua here and point you to http://www.math.ohiou.edu/~hyclak/casit/amanda/ I recommend getting the lastest 2.4.5pX source RPM from Fedora and rebuilding it on your CentOS machine. That way you can specify tape servers and default configurations with options to rpmbuild. Matt -- Matt Hyclak Department of Mathematics Department of Social Work Ohio University (740) 593-1263
Re: Migrating to Amanda, question 2
2006/2/10, Lengyel, Florian [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Yes, it seems to have difficulty recognizing the second SCSI tape drive if you have two. So one of my Spectralogic 2K tape drives is languishing, while the other has all the fun. I have 1 tape drive + 6 tape slots, but they still advised me to use a more recent kernel. Strangely mtx was not a requirement for BRU, only mt. I do have it installed anyway and I certainly will need it for Amanda. -- Enrico Indiogine Parasol Laboratory Texas AM University [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 979-845-3937
RE: Migrating to Amanda, question 2
Title: RE: Migrating to Amanda, question 2 CentOS does work for me, but I had to add the following to /etc/rc.d/rc.local # create sg devices and turn hardware spectralogic hardware compression off modprobe sg ln -s /dev/sg0 /dev/changer mt -f /dev/nst0 compression 0 mt -f /dev/nst1 compression 0 amcleanup Daily If you don't do the first two statements, you won't have the device needed for mtx. The mt statements that turn off compression are worth a small fortune in consulting fees: I defy anyone to find the value 0 in the man pages. Actually you can find it in the man pages. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Salvatore Enrico Indiogine Sent: Fri 2/10/2006 3:16 PM To: amanda-users@amanda.org Subject: Re: Migrating to Amanda, question 2 2006/2/10, Lengyel, Florian [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Yes, it seems to have difficulty recognizing the second SCSI tape drive if you have two. So one of my Spectralogic 2K tape drives is languishing, while the other has all the fun. I have 1 tape drive + 6 tape slots, but they still advised me to use a more recent kernel. Strangely mtx was not a requirement for BRU, only mt. I do have it installed anyway and I certainly will need it for Amanda. -- Enrico Indiogine Parasol Laboratory Texas AM University [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 979-845-3937
Re: Migrating to Amanda, question 2
On Friday 10 February 2006 15:16, Salvatore Enrico Indiogine wrote: 2006/2/10, Lengyel, Florian [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Yes, it seems to have difficulty recognizing the second SCSI tape drive if you have two. So one of my Spectralogic 2K tape drives is languishing, while the other has all the fun. I have 1 tape drive + 6 tape slots, but they still advised me to use a more recent kernel. Strangely mtx was not a requirement for BRU, only mt. I do have it installed anyway and I certainly will need it for Amanda. I wonder if this might be related to not having the option to scan all luns turned on in the kernel config? With that turned on, and turning that on is what got me to build my first kernel many years ago now, I had no problem recognizeing all the scsi devices in the system way back then, but I have no scsi stuff left now. -- Enrico Indiogine Parasol Laboratory Texas AM University [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 979-845-3937 -- Cheers, Gene People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word 'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
RE: Migrating to Amanda, question 2
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 at 2:56pm, Lengyel, Florian wrote Yes, it seems to have difficulty recognizing the second SCSI tape drive if you have two. So one of my Spectralogic 2K tape drives is languishing, while the other has all the fun. Err, I have a 2 drive library on centos-4 with no problems. On my system, though, each drive (and the robot) have separate SCSI IDs. I imagine that folks have problems on systems with drives on the same SCSI ID but separate LUNs, and that can be made to work too. -- Joshua Baker-LePain Department of Biomedical Engineering Duke University
