On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 at 9:10pm, Jon LaBadie wrote
> out of the second field with a 4 field entry. I.e. raidion_HOME_REST
> rather than /raidion... I've never used the diskname in a 4 part'er
> with slashes. I'm thinking, maybe the leading slash makes some part
> of amanda think it is a pathname
I can't remember if this was mentioned, but what is the amanda
version of the client giving the error message?
I believe you need 2.4.3 or later to specify a "diskname" and
"diskdevice". In 2.4.2 the syntax of a DLE would allow only a
"diskname".
Because the diskname should be unique in a diskli
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 01:19:52PM +1000, Jesus Salvo Jr. wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 April 2005 13:07, Jesus Salvo Jr. wrote:
> > I think I know what the problem maybe, though I do not know the solution:
> >
> > The test that I did with chg-zd-mtx works only if I run it in
> > the /usr/local/etc/amanda
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 01:45:15PM +0200, Paul Bijnens wrote:
>
> I believe you need 2.4.3 or later to specify a "diskname" and
> "diskdevice". In 2.4.2 the syntax of a DLE would allow only a
> "diskname".
>
> Because the diskname should be unique in a disklist file, the
> workaround in that ti
Hi,
I'm currently using Amanda to backup 4 servers (three Solaris boxes and one
Fedora Core 3). They are all running Amanda 2.4.4p4. I have a problem with
one of the clients being MUCH slower than the others. I was wondering if
anyone could give me any pointers about where to begin poking ar
Kaushal Shriyan wrote:
[...]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tartest]# mt -f /dev/nst0 rewind
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tartest]# tar -tvf /dev/nst0
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2005-04-01 15:54:53 folderA/
-rw-r--r-- root/root 7 2005-04-01 15:54:48 folderA/t1
-rw-r--r-- root/root10 2005-04-01 15:54:55
Hi has anyone got a GFS(Grand Father Son rotation setup for amanda.conf
file. As I going to use this commonly used backup cycle for dumpcycle,
runspercycle and tapecycle of 24.
4 daily, 4/5 for weekly and 12 monthly two for error/amflush and 1 for
tape cleaning.
Cheers Chuck
--
Unix/ Linux Systems
Salada, Duncan S. wrote:
The slow client is a Sun V100 running Solaris 8. While it is
certainly a low-end system, it is also the newest. According to
Amanda's reports, it's consistently transferring dumps at around 425
to 475 KB/s. By contrast, I have another client (a Sun Ultra
Enterprise I run
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?
I'd say the error count is insignificant...
# netstat -ni
Name Mtu Net/Dest AddressIpkts Ierrs
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 04:15:51PM +0200, Paul Bijnens wrote:
> Most modern tapedevices are not random access.
> I don't know how to "rewind a little", and neither does the gnutar
> programmer which states in the beginning of the "update.c" source
> file: "... if [the files] are on raw tape or som
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 01:45:15PM +0200, Paul Bijnens wrote:
> I can't remember if this was mentioned, but what is the amanda
> version of the client giving the error message?
> I believe you need 2.4.3 or later to specify a "diskname" and
> "diskdevice". In 2.4.2 the syntax of a DLE would allow
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 09:03:16AM -0400, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 01:45:15PM +0200, Paul Bijnens wrote:
> > I believe you need 2.4.3 or later to specify a "diskname" and
> > "diskdevice". In 2.4.2 the syntax of a DLE would allow only a
> > "diskname".
> > Because the diskname
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?
I expect it is, Duncan. One really should have a
Thanks for the info, Gene. That will be very helpful when telling folks why
the disk is needed and when I set it up.
Duncan
---
Duncan Salada
Titan Corporation
301-925-3222 x375
> -Original Message-
> From: Gene Heskett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTEC
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 o
Hey, all!
I've got a client who was running backups to tape using amanda for several
years and the backup server finally died. After much discussion, the
decision was reached to replace it with a new box mounting a pair of 160G
hard drives (in a RAID1 mirror) and a pair of external DVD burners.
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
> 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 a
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 08:56:46PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
> > 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 fa
On Tuesday 12 April 2005 14:23, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
>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 t
19 matches
Mail list logo
