On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 10:55:56PM -0400, Ian Turner wrote:
> Jon,
>
> I thought you were in Princeton. Did you move?
>
> --Ian
>
Yes I did Ian. Moved at the beginning of the year to
Reston, which for those unfamiliar with the area is
about 20 miles west of Washington, D.C.
Jon
--
Jon H. LaB
Mtrento,
There are a few different issues here:
1. Setting tape_splitsize affects the way dumps are broken up when writing to
tape, but does not affect they way they are stored on the holding disk. So
dumps will still be done directly if they are larger than the holding disk,
even if you have
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 03:56:38PM -0600, Doyle Collings wrote:
> If I do not specify --with-maxtapeblocksize when the source is configured in
> 2.6.0p1 will the blocksize parameter in tapetype be ignored and the block
> size default to 32k?
>
I don't have definitive information on this, but I
Jon,
I thought you were in Princeton. Did you move?
--Ian
On Friday 25 July 2008 14:03:52 Jon LaBadie wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 01:18:40PM -0400, Brian Cuttler wrote:
> > We have a Solaris E250 amanda server backing up two T1000 servers,
> > also Solaris, hosting Lotus Notes.
> >
> > Over
If I do not specify --with-maxtapeblocksize when the source is configured in
2.6.0p1 will the blocksize parameter in tapetype be ignored and the block size
default to 32k?
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Doyle Collings
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When you say thay your getting rid of --with-maxtapeblocksize in
> Amanda-2.6.1, does that mean I will be able to specify blocksize in my
> tapetype definition without it? Is is neccesary now or does it just specify
>
When you say thay your getting rid of --with-maxtapeblocksize in Amanda-2.6.1,
does that mean I will be able to specify blocksize in my tapetype definition
without it? Is is neccesary now or does it just specify the maximum blocksize
I can use? Is there a source RPM for 64bit SLES?
>>> "Dusti
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 2:43 AM, Doyle Collings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have decided to clean out my old installations of Amanda 2.46, 2.6.0p1 rpm,
> and 2.6.0p1 from source and start fresh. I noticed that the defaults of the
> install from source do not match the rpm from zmanda. For ex
On Saturday 26 July 2008, Doyle Collings wrote:
>I have decided to clean out my old installations of Amanda 2.46, 2.6.0p1
> rpm, and 2.6.0p1 from source and start fresh. I noticed that the defaults
> of the install from source do not match the rpm from zmanda. For example,
> The link
> http://wik
On Saturday 26 July 2008, Doyle Collings wrote:
>Those e-mails stopped when I installed from source. I would like them back
> again. There is probably a missing link somewhere. Maybe I need to go
> back to the RPM version or the 2.4.5-17.2 version that comes with my SLES
> 10 SP1
That s/b in yo
I have decided to clean out my old installations of Amanda 2.46, 2.6.0p1 rpm,
and 2.6.0p1 from source and start fresh. I noticed that the defaults of the
install from source do not match the rpm from zmanda. For example, The link
http://wiki.zmanda.com/index.php/Amanda_packages_from_Zmanda_dow
11 matches
Mail list logo
