RE: slow amanda performance on ONE system.
...up to the point where you can't get it back when it fails. Users also have an expectation of restoration, Disaster Recovery and uptime. Space isn't everything, just the most obvious. Dana Bourgeois > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Kantarjiev > Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 7:39 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: slow amanda performance on ONE system. > > > > >Just an example from our mail server (ca 300 users): > > > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/data# du -h --max-depth=1 | grep MAIL > > >21G ./MAIL > > > > Good grief Toomas! Can you not institute a mail box size > limit, about > > 10 megs maybe? > > No no no. That's completely wrong. Disk is cheap, and the > user is king. Remember, the user is paying to use the system, > not make it easy for us sysadmins to keep it running. > >
Re: slow amanda performance on ONE system.
On Tuesday 04 November 2003 10:57, Brian Cuttler wrote: >Gene, > >Where do you work ? Don't know about Toomas' site but at mine the >users complain that we forbid individual messages exceeding 20 Meg. >A mailbox size limit ? Unthinkable. > > Brian I'm a tv broadcast engineer thats trying to retire, honest I am. At nearly 70 its time. So some of the anecdotal stories I tell come from the tv station. But I have a 10 meg limit in my mailbox at verizon, and had a 5 meg limit at my previous ISP. That was in the TOS, but was never enforced on me cause even if somebody sent me 20 megs of stuff, it would be downloaded and dleted within the hour. The only problem I've had with the 10 meg limit is that verizon has a spam/viri killer that stores that crap in a diferent folder, but its still charged aganst my 10 megs until I delete it. Problem was, I knew nothing about it, never having used their webmail interface, which, when I finally did figure out I had to go cleanout the spam trap, turned out to be such a bowl of spagetti code they had to lead me around by the hand to do it. >> On Tuesday 04 November 2003 09:57, Toomas Aas wrote: >> >> You have over 5 gigabytes of mail? I find that hard to believe, >> >> not even a major spammer would have that much. >> > >> >Alas. These days, when just about everybody sends mail in HTML >> > format, it is customary to send HUGE .doc files back and forth >> > and nobody ever deletes any old mail, it is not that uncommon. >> > >> >Just an example from our mail server (ca 300 users): >> > >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/data# du -h --max-depth=1 | grep MAIL >> >21G ./MAIL >> >> Good grief Toomas! Can you not institute a mail box size limit, >> about 10 megs maybe? >> >> >-- >> >Toomas Aas | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | >> > http://www.raad.tartu.ee/~toomas/ * Why is there so much month >> > left at the end of the money? >> >> -- >> Cheers, Gene >> AMD [EMAIL PROTECTED] 320M >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 512M >> 99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly >> Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message >> by Gene Heskett are: >> Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved. -- Cheers, Gene AMD [EMAIL PROTECTED] 320M [EMAIL PROTECTED] 512M 99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
Re: slow amanda performance on ONE system.
On Tuesday 04 November 2003 10:39, Chris Kantarjiev wrote: >> >Just an example from our mail server (ca 300 users): >> > >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/data# du -h --max-depth=1 | grep MAIL >> >21G ./MAIL >> >> Good grief Toomas! Can you not institute a mail box size limit, >> about 10 megs maybe? > >No no no. That's completely wrong. Disk is cheap, and the user is > king. Remember, the user is paying to use the system, not make it > easy for us sysadmins to keep it running. Maybe, but there should be some sort of an abuse penalty none-the-less. But then as you say, disk is cheap these days, and I shouldn't try to tell you how to run your business. My apologies. -- Cheers, Gene AMD [EMAIL PROTECTED] 320M [EMAIL PROTECTED] 512M 99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
Re: slow amanda performance on ONE system.
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Gene Heskett wrote: > Good grief Toomas! Can you not institute a mail box size limit, about > 10 megs maybe? Good grief indeed. This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with using amanda. Please take it offline. -Mitch P.S. To whomever posted the original 'one system too slow' query. Please double-check your duplex settings on the slow backing up machine. Mismatched duplex is one of the most common causes of this problem.
Re: slow amanda performance on ONE system.
On Tuesday, 04.11.2003 at 10:05 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Tuesday 04 November 2003 09:57, Toomas Aas wrote: > >> You have over 5 gigabytes of mail? I find that hard to believe, > >> not even a major spammer would have that much. > > > >Alas. These days, when just about everybody sends mail in HTML > > format, it is customary to send HUGE .doc files back and forth and > > nobody ever deletes any old mail, it is not that uncommon. > > > >Just an example from our mail server (ca 300 users): > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/data# du -h --max-depth=1 | grep MAIL > >21G ./MAIL > > Good grief Toomas! Can you not institute a mail box size limit, about > 10 megs maybe? Depends on the context, of course. An IMAP server where all mail is stored on the server (including sub-folders, possibly going back many years etc.) you could justifiably need a few hundred megs for each user, perhaps more. Toomas's 21GB for 300 users equates to about 70MB per user, which doesn't sound too silly. If this is just the mail *spool*, however (it's not totally clear from the example), I would have thought that it would affect performance (especially to remote users accessing their spools) to have spool files of that size. Dave. -- Dave Ewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computing Manager, Epidemiology Unit, Oxford Cancer Research UK PGP: CC70 1883 BD92 E665 B840 118B 6E94 2CFD 694D E370
Re: slow amanda performance on ONE system.
The problem is useers who NEED those huge.doc and huge++.ppt files to do their job, and for "how I did that class" or "what did I quote them" Hmm- maybe the storage industry is slipping plants into Microsofts planning sessions to get larger files to sell more tapes and libraries. --- :) rcb ( whose Son works there ) Gene Heskett wrote: On Tuesday 04 November 2003 09:57, Toomas Aas wrote: You have over 5 gigabytes of mail? I find that hard to believe, not even a major spammer would have that much. Alas. These days, when just about everybody sends mail in HTML format, it is customary to send HUGE .doc files back and forth and nobody ever deletes any old mail, it is not that uncommon. Just an example from our mail server (ca 300 users): [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/data# du -h --max-depth=1 | grep MAIL 21G ./MAIL Good grief Toomas! Can you not institute a mail box size limit, about 10 megs maybe? -- Toomas Aas | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.raad.tartu.ee/~toomas/ * Why is there so much month left at the end of the money?
Re: slow amanda performance on ONE system.
At 2003-11-04T13:28:37Z, Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You have over 5 gigabytes of mail? I find that hard to believe, not > even a major spammer would have that much. Erm, I have about 2.5 GB of mail in my personal spool. How? By not deleting personal mail - ever. I have pretty strict filters on mailing lists (14 days for slower lists, 7 days for ones with higher traffic), but I have every email I've ever sent or received since switching to a Unix system (after my Amiga's drive crashed and Diavolo Pro wouldn't recognize the backup tapes). I use Cyrus IMAP which deals well with huge folders. I have a huge amount of available storage. None of my mail clients choke on archive directories with 10,000 emails. Given all that, I can't think of a good reason to delete anything. -- Kirk Strauser In Googlis non est, ergo non est. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: slow amanda performance on ONE system.
Gene, Where do you work ? Don't know about Toomas' site but at mine the users complain that we forbid individual messages exceeding 20 Meg. A mailbox size limit ? Unthinkable. Brian > On Tuesday 04 November 2003 09:57, Toomas Aas wrote: > >> You have over 5 gigabytes of mail? I find that hard to believe, > >> not even a major spammer would have that much. > > > >Alas. These days, when just about everybody sends mail in HTML > > format, it is customary to send HUGE .doc files back and forth and > > nobody ever deletes any old mail, it is not that uncommon. > > > >Just an example from our mail server (ca 300 users): > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/data# du -h --max-depth=1 | grep MAIL > >21G ./MAIL > > Good grief Toomas! Can you not institute a mail box size limit, about > 10 megs maybe? > > >-- > >Toomas Aas | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > > http://www.raad.tartu.ee/~toomas/ * Why is there so much month left > > at the end of the money? > > -- > Cheers, Gene > AMD [EMAIL PROTECTED] 320M > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 512M > 99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly > Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message > by Gene Heskett are: > Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved. >
Re: slow amanda performance on ONE system.
> >Just an example from our mail server (ca 300 users): > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/data# du -h --max-depth=1 | grep MAIL > >21G ./MAIL > > Good grief Toomas! Can you not institute a mail box size limit, about > 10 megs maybe? No no no. That's completely wrong. Disk is cheap, and the user is king. Remember, the user is paying to use the system, not make it easy for us sysadmins to keep it running.
Re: slow amanda performance on ONE system.
On Tuesday 04 November 2003 09:57, Toomas Aas wrote: >> You have over 5 gigabytes of mail? I find that hard to believe, >> not even a major spammer would have that much. > >Alas. These days, when just about everybody sends mail in HTML > format, it is customary to send HUGE .doc files back and forth and > nobody ever deletes any old mail, it is not that uncommon. > >Just an example from our mail server (ca 300 users): > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/data# du -h --max-depth=1 | grep MAIL >21G ./MAIL Good grief Toomas! Can you not institute a mail box size limit, about 10 megs maybe? >-- >Toomas Aas | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > http://www.raad.tartu.ee/~toomas/ * Why is there so much month left > at the end of the money? -- Cheers, Gene AMD [EMAIL PROTECTED] 320M [EMAIL PROTECTED] 512M 99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
Re: slow amanda performance on ONE system.
On Tuesday 04 November 2003 09:36, Brian Cuttler wrote: >Gene, > >> You have over 5 gigabytes of mail? I find that hard to believe, >> not even a major spammer would have that much. > > > Of course not Brian :-) >Depends, number of users, number of users that use eudora and keep >mail on server, attachments... I've got close to 50 gig of mail on >my mailhost system - and you aught to see what the Lotus Notes users >have in the way of mail... I wuld discourage the use of a mailer that leaves that much read mail on the server. The client, once having downloaded it for the users pleasure, really should command the server to delete it. Or the server should clean house after about 40 days or less. As a user, my Mail dir is 650k. And I have kmail trained to delete after 60 days in most folders. >--- > Brian R Cuttler [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Computer Systems Support(v) 518 486-1697 > Wadsworth Center(f) 518 473-6384 > NYS Department of HealthHelp Desk 518 473-0773 > >> On Tuesday 04 November 2003 01:06, Turgut Kalfaoglu wrote: >> >Hello - I am making great progress with Amanda; now backing up >> > three systems. (For some reason, samba backups did not work for >> > me; but installing the amanda client on our windows server did >> > the trick; I can backup over that). We have a dedicated machine >> > to do the backups, and it backs up two unix servers (one Linux >> > one SunOS 5.8), and a windows machine. >> > >> >One puzzling thing is that our SunOS system seems to >> >take a very long time making backups. I started a full backup >> > about 12 hours ago, and it's still running. If I wait long >> > enough, it finishes (I did it once before), but I would like it >> > to finish in a regular timeframe. There is no bottleneck as far >> > as I can tell; the machines are mostly idle; the network >> > connection is 100MB like the other machines. I am not very good >> > at reading the 'amstatus' output so I thought I would ask for >> > help from this very helpful group.. >> > >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] amanda]$ amstatus home | more >> >Using /usr/adm/amanda/DailySet1/amdump from Mon Nov 3 23:25:26 >> > EET 2003 >> > >> >home:/etc0 6296k finished (23:46:28) >> >home:/usr/local 0 552408k finished (3:32:29) >> >home:/usr/users 0 1516665k dumping to tape (3:32:29) >> >home:/var/spool/mail 0 5028910k wait for dumping >> >> You have over 5 gigabytes of mail? I find that hard to believe, >> not even a major spammer would have that much. >> >> >SUMMARY part real estimated >> > size size >> >partition : 4 >> >estimated : 4 7227450k >> >flush : 0 0k >> >failed : 00k ( 0.00%) >> >wait for dumping: 1 5028910k ( 69.58%) >> >dumping to tape : 1 1516665k ( 20.98%) >> >dumping : 0 0k 0k ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%) >> >dumped : 3 2075369k 2198540k ( 94.40%) ( 28.72%) >> >wait for writing: 0 0k 0k ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%) >> >wait to flush : 0 0k 0k (100.00%) ( 0.00%) >> >writing to tape : 0 0k 0k ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%) >> >failed to tape : 0 0k 0k ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%) >> >taped : 2558704k681875k ( 81.94%) ( 7.73%) >> >3 dumpers idle : not-idle >> >taper writing, tapeq: 0 >> >network free kps: 6570 >> >holding space : 0k ( 0.00%) >> > dumper0 busy : 4:03:57 (100.00%) >> > taper busy : 4:03:57 (100.00%) >> > 0 dumpers busy : 0:00:00 ( 0.00%) >> > 1 dumper busy : 4:03:57 (100.00%)not-idle: >> > 4:03:57 (100.00%) >> > >> >I just checked the 'home' system; the one that's being backed up, >> > and it shows that 'tar' is running, likewise for two >> > 'sendbackup' processes. The last entry in /tmp/amanda belongs to >> > amandad, and it has not been updated for about 4 hours. it >> > reads: >> >CONNECT DATA 921 MESG 922 INDEX 923 >> >OPTIONS features=feff9ffe0f; >> > >> > >> >amandad: time 0.133: got packet: >> > >> >Amanda 2.4 ACK HANDLE 000-A8E80608 SEQ 1067894728 >> > >> > >> >amandad: time 0.133: pid 8343 finish time Tue Nov 4 03:29:37 >> > 2003 >> > >> >I guess this means that it finished. >> > >> >PS: I dont have a tape drive define; I backup to disk using the >> > very useful chg-disk "changer". Therefore I did not define any >> > holding disks. >> > >> >I'd appreciate any feedback.. >> >Thanks, -turgut >> >> I sure don't see, from the above report, a reason it should be so >> slow. Is the system quiet, or are the drives being hammered by >> seeks? >> >> Whatever you find, we would be interested in the fix for our own >> edification. >> >> >- >> >Turgut Kalfaoglu: http://www.kalfaoglu.com >> >EgeNet Internet Services: http://www.egenet.com.tr >> >> -- >> Cheers, Gene >> AMD [EMAIL
Re: slow amanda performance on ONE system.
> You have over 5 gigabytes of mail? I find that hard to believe, not > even a major spammer would have that much. Alas. These days, when just about everybody sends mail in HTML format, it is customary to send HUGE .doc files back and forth and nobody ever deletes any old mail, it is not that uncommon. Just an example from our mail server (ca 300 users): [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/data# du -h --max-depth=1 | grep MAIL 21G ./MAIL -- Toomas Aas | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.raad.tartu.ee/~toomas/ * Why is there so much month left at the end of the money?
Re: slow amanda performance on ONE system.
Gene, > You have over 5 gigabytes of mail? I find that hard to believe, not > even a major spammer would have that much. Depends, number of users, number of users that use eudora and keep mail on server, attachments... I've got close to 50 gig of mail on my mailhost system - and you aught to see what the Lotus Notes users have in the way of mail... --- Brian R Cuttler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computer Systems Support(v) 518 486-1697 Wadsworth Center(f) 518 473-6384 NYS Department of HealthHelp Desk 518 473-0773 > On Tuesday 04 November 2003 01:06, Turgut Kalfaoglu wrote: > >Hello - I am making great progress with Amanda; now backing up three > >systems. (For some reason, samba backups did not work for me; but > >installing the amanda client on our windows server did the trick; I > > can backup over that). We have a dedicated machine to do the > > backups, and it backs up two unix servers (one Linux one SunOS > > 5.8), and a windows machine. > > > >One puzzling thing is that our SunOS system seems to > >take a very long time making backups. I started a full backup about > > 12 hours ago, and it's still running. If I wait long enough, it > > finishes (I did it once before), but I would like it to finish in a > > regular timeframe. There is no bottleneck as far as I can tell; the > > machines are mostly idle; the network connection is 100MB like the > > other machines. I am not very good at reading the 'amstatus' output > > so I thought I would ask for help from this very helpful group.. > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] amanda]$ amstatus home | more > >Using /usr/adm/amanda/DailySet1/amdump from Mon Nov 3 23:25:26 EET > > 2003 > > > >home:/etc0 6296k finished (23:46:28) > >home:/usr/local 0 552408k finished (3:32:29) > >home:/usr/users 0 1516665k dumping to tape (3:32:29) > >home:/var/spool/mail 0 5028910k wait for dumping > > You have over 5 gigabytes of mail? I find that hard to believe, not > even a major spammer would have that much. > > >SUMMARY part real estimated > > size size > >partition : 4 > >estimated : 4 7227450k > >flush : 0 0k > >failed : 00k ( 0.00%) > >wait for dumping: 1 5028910k ( 69.58%) > >dumping to tape : 1 1516665k ( 20.98%) > >dumping : 0 0k 0k ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%) > >dumped : 3 2075369k 2198540k ( 94.40%) ( 28.72%) > >wait for writing: 0 0k 0k ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%) > >wait to flush : 0 0k 0k (100.00%) ( 0.00%) > >writing to tape : 0 0k 0k ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%) > >failed to tape : 0 0k 0k ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%) > >taped : 2558704k681875k ( 81.94%) ( 7.73%) > >3 dumpers idle : not-idle > >taper writing, tapeq: 0 > >network free kps: 6570 > >holding space : 0k ( 0.00%) > > dumper0 busy : 4:03:57 (100.00%) > > taper busy : 4:03:57 (100.00%) > > 0 dumpers busy : 0:00:00 ( 0.00%) > > 1 dumper busy : 4:03:57 (100.00%)not-idle: 4:03:57 > > (100.00%) > > > >I just checked the 'home' system; the one that's being backed up, > > and it shows that 'tar' is running, likewise for two 'sendbackup' > > processes. The last entry in /tmp/amanda belongs to amandad, and it > > has not been updated for about 4 hours. it reads: > >CONNECT DATA 921 MESG 922 INDEX 923 > >OPTIONS features=feff9ffe0f; > > > > > >amandad: time 0.133: got packet: > > > >Amanda 2.4 ACK HANDLE 000-A8E80608 SEQ 1067894728 > > > > > >amandad: time 0.133: pid 8343 finish time Tue Nov 4 03:29:37 2003 > > > >I guess this means that it finished. > > > >PS: I dont have a tape drive define; I backup to disk using the very > >useful chg-disk "changer". Therefore I did not define any holding > > disks. > > > >I'd appreciate any feedback.. > >Thanks, -turgut > > > I sure don't see, from the above report, a reason it should be so > slow. Is the system quiet, or are the drives being hammered by > seeks? > > Whatever you find, we would be interested in the fix for our own > edification. > > >- > >Turgut Kalfaoglu: http://www.kalfaoglu.com > >EgeNet Internet Services: http://www.egenet.com.tr > > -- > Cheers, Gene > AMD [EMAIL PROTECTED] 320M > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 512M > 99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly > Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message > by Gene Heskett are: > Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved. >
Re: slow amanda performance on ONE system.
Hi there. I did various things; defining holding disks was one; and now I see that several areas are being backed up at the same time. Also, I noticed that the machine was on a *10MB* port, not a 100! So, that got corrected quickly today as well! Yes, we need to get our users to clean up their mail more often; we do have 5G of email of theirs waiting :( Many thanks, -turgut - Turgut Kalfaoglu: http://www.kalfaoglu.com EgeNet Internet Services: http://www.egenet.com.tr
Re: slow amanda performance on ONE system.
On Tuesday 04 November 2003 01:06, Turgut Kalfaoglu wrote: >Hello - I am making great progress with Amanda; now backing up three >systems. (For some reason, samba backups did not work for me; but >installing the amanda client on our windows server did the trick; I > can backup over that). We have a dedicated machine to do the > backups, and it backs up two unix servers (one Linux one SunOS > 5.8), and a windows machine. > >One puzzling thing is that our SunOS system seems to >take a very long time making backups. I started a full backup about > 12 hours ago, and it's still running. If I wait long enough, it > finishes (I did it once before), but I would like it to finish in a > regular timeframe. There is no bottleneck as far as I can tell; the > machines are mostly idle; the network connection is 100MB like the > other machines. I am not very good at reading the 'amstatus' output > so I thought I would ask for help from this very helpful group.. > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] amanda]$ amstatus home | more >Using /usr/adm/amanda/DailySet1/amdump from Mon Nov 3 23:25:26 EET > 2003 > >home:/etc0 6296k finished (23:46:28) >home:/usr/local 0 552408k finished (3:32:29) >home:/usr/users 0 1516665k dumping to tape (3:32:29) >home:/var/spool/mail 0 5028910k wait for dumping You have over 5 gigabytes of mail? I find that hard to believe, not even a major spammer would have that much. >SUMMARY part real estimated > size size >partition : 4 >estimated : 4 7227450k >flush : 0 0k >failed : 00k ( 0.00%) >wait for dumping: 1 5028910k ( 69.58%) >dumping to tape : 1 1516665k ( 20.98%) >dumping : 0 0k 0k ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%) >dumped : 3 2075369k 2198540k ( 94.40%) ( 28.72%) >wait for writing: 0 0k 0k ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%) >wait to flush : 0 0k 0k (100.00%) ( 0.00%) >writing to tape : 0 0k 0k ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%) >failed to tape : 0 0k 0k ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%) >taped : 2558704k681875k ( 81.94%) ( 7.73%) >3 dumpers idle : not-idle >taper writing, tapeq: 0 >network free kps: 6570 >holding space : 0k ( 0.00%) > dumper0 busy : 4:03:57 (100.00%) > taper busy : 4:03:57 (100.00%) > 0 dumpers busy : 0:00:00 ( 0.00%) > 1 dumper busy : 4:03:57 (100.00%)not-idle: 4:03:57 > (100.00%) > >I just checked the 'home' system; the one that's being backed up, > and it shows that 'tar' is running, likewise for two 'sendbackup' > processes. The last entry in /tmp/amanda belongs to amandad, and it > has not been updated for about 4 hours. it reads: >CONNECT DATA 921 MESG 922 INDEX 923 >OPTIONS features=feff9ffe0f; > > >amandad: time 0.133: got packet: > >Amanda 2.4 ACK HANDLE 000-A8E80608 SEQ 1067894728 > > >amandad: time 0.133: pid 8343 finish time Tue Nov 4 03:29:37 2003 > >I guess this means that it finished. > >PS: I dont have a tape drive define; I backup to disk using the very >useful chg-disk "changer". Therefore I did not define any holding > disks. > >I'd appreciate any feedback.. >Thanks, -turgut > I sure don't see, from the above report, a reason it should be so slow. Is the system quiet, or are the drives being hammered by seeks? Whatever you find, we would be interested in the fix for our own edification. >- >Turgut Kalfaoglu: http://www.kalfaoglu.com >EgeNet Internet Services: http://www.egenet.com.tr -- Cheers, Gene AMD [EMAIL PROTECTED] 320M [EMAIL PROTECTED] 512M 99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
RE: slow amanda performance on ONE system.
You want a holding disk. Even though your tape is 'disk', taper can only write to one disk file and without a holding disk, a single dumper has to pipe to the taper. You're limiting your throughput. Taper is going to be really fast so you only need about about 150% of your largest DLE for hold space. But you do need some. Dana Bourgeois > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Turgut Kalfaoglu > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 10:07 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: slow amanda performance on ONE system. > > > > Hello - I am making great progress with Amanda; now backing > up three systems. (For some reason, samba backups did not > work for me; but installing the amanda client on our windows > server did the trick; I can backup over that). We have a > dedicated machine to do the backups, and it backs up two unix > servers (one Linux one SunOS 5.8), and a windows machine. > > One puzzling thing is that our SunOS system seems to > take a very long time making backups. I started a full backup > about 12 hours ago, and it's still running. If I wait long > enough, it finishes (I did it once before), but I would like > it to finish in a regular timeframe. There is no bottleneck > as far as I can tell; the machines are mostly idle; the > network connection is 100MB like the other machines. I am not > very good at reading the 'amstatus' output so I thought I > would ask for help from this very helpful group.. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] amanda]$ amstatus home | more > Using /usr/adm/amanda/DailySet1/amdump from Mon Nov 3 > 23:25:26 EET 2003 > > home:/etc0 6296k finished (23:46:28) > home:/usr/local 0 552408k finished (3:32:29) > home:/usr/users 0 1516665k dumping to tape (3:32:29) > home:/var/spool/mail 0 5028910k wait for dumping > > SUMMARY part real estimated >size size > partition : 4 > estimated : 4 7227450k > flush : 0 0k > failed : 00k ( 0.00%) > wait for dumping: 1 5028910k ( 69.58%) > dumping to tape : 1 1516665k ( 20.98%) > dumping : 0 0k 0k ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%) > dumped : 3 2075369k 2198540k ( 94.40%) ( 28.72%) > wait for writing: 0 0k 0k ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%) > wait to flush : 0 0k 0k (100.00%) ( 0.00%) > writing to tape : 0 0k 0k ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%) > failed to tape : 0 0k 0k ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%) > taped : 2558704k681875k ( 81.94%) ( 7.73%) > 3 dumpers idle : not-idle > taper writing, tapeq: 0 > network free kps: 6570 > holding space : 0k ( 0.00%) > dumper0 busy : 4:03:57 (100.00%) >taper busy : 4:03:57 (100.00%) > 0 dumpers busy : 0:00:00 ( 0.00%) > 1 dumper busy : 4:03:57 (100.00%)not-idle: > 4:03:57 (100.00%) > > I just checked the 'home' system; the one that's being backed > up, and it shows that 'tar' is running, likewise for two > 'sendbackup' processes. > The last entry in /tmp/amanda belongs to amandad, and it has > not been updated for about 4 hours. it reads: CONNECT DATA > 921 MESG 922 INDEX 923 OPTIONS features=feff9ffe0f; > > > amandad: time 0.133: got packet: > > Amanda 2.4 ACK HANDLE 000-A8E80608 SEQ 1067894728 > > > amandad: time 0.133: pid 8343 finish time Tue Nov 4 03:29:37 2003 > > I guess this means that it finished. > > PS: I dont have a tape drive define; I backup to disk using > the very useful chg-disk "changer". Therefore I did not > define any holding disks. > > I'd appreciate any feedback.. > Thanks, -turgut > > > - > Turgut Kalfaoglu: http://www.kalfaoglu.com > EgeNet Internet Services: http://www.egenet.com.tr > > >
slow amanda performance on ONE system.
Hello - I am making great progress with Amanda; now backing up three systems. (For some reason, samba backups did not work for me; but installing the amanda client on our windows server did the trick; I can backup over that). We have a dedicated machine to do the backups, and it backs up two unix servers (one Linux one SunOS 5.8), and a windows machine. One puzzling thing is that our SunOS system seems to take a very long time making backups. I started a full backup about 12 hours ago, and it's still running. If I wait long enough, it finishes (I did it once before), but I would like it to finish in a regular timeframe. There is no bottleneck as far as I can tell; the machines are mostly idle; the network connection is 100MB like the other machines. I am not very good at reading the 'amstatus' output so I thought I would ask for help from this very helpful group.. [EMAIL PROTECTED] amanda]$ amstatus home | more Using /usr/adm/amanda/DailySet1/amdump from Mon Nov 3 23:25:26 EET 2003 home:/etc0 6296k finished (23:46:28) home:/usr/local 0 552408k finished (3:32:29) home:/usr/users 0 1516665k dumping to tape (3:32:29) home:/var/spool/mail 0 5028910k wait for dumping SUMMARY part real estimated size size partition : 4 estimated : 4 7227450k flush : 0 0k failed : 00k ( 0.00%) wait for dumping: 1 5028910k ( 69.58%) dumping to tape : 1 1516665k ( 20.98%) dumping : 0 0k 0k ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%) dumped : 3 2075369k 2198540k ( 94.40%) ( 28.72%) wait for writing: 0 0k 0k ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%) wait to flush : 0 0k 0k (100.00%) ( 0.00%) writing to tape : 0 0k 0k ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%) failed to tape : 0 0k 0k ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%) taped : 2558704k681875k ( 81.94%) ( 7.73%) 3 dumpers idle : not-idle taper writing, tapeq: 0 network free kps: 6570 holding space : 0k ( 0.00%) dumper0 busy : 4:03:57 (100.00%) taper busy : 4:03:57 (100.00%) 0 dumpers busy : 0:00:00 ( 0.00%) 1 dumper busy : 4:03:57 (100.00%)not-idle: 4:03:57 (100.00%) I just checked the 'home' system; the one that's being backed up, and it shows that 'tar' is running, likewise for two 'sendbackup' processes. The last entry in /tmp/amanda belongs to amandad, and it has not been updated for about 4 hours. it reads: CONNECT DATA 921 MESG 922 INDEX 923 OPTIONS features=feff9ffe0f; amandad: time 0.133: got packet: Amanda 2.4 ACK HANDLE 000-A8E80608 SEQ 1067894728 amandad: time 0.133: pid 8343 finish time Tue Nov 4 03:29:37 2003 I guess this means that it finished. PS: I dont have a tape drive define; I backup to disk using the very useful chg-disk "changer". Therefore I did not define any holding disks. I'd appreciate any feedback.. Thanks, -turgut - Turgut Kalfaoglu: http://www.kalfaoglu.com EgeNet Internet Services: http://www.egenet.com.tr
