--On Friday, March 19, 2004 14:47:44 -0500 Jonathan Dill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would guess that the "ufsrestore" is making an "index" of one of the dumps. If
> you don't care about interactive "amrecover" you could make a dumptype that doesn't
> do "index" that should eliminate the ufs
I would guess that the "ufsrestore" is making an "index" of one of the
dumps. If you don't care about interactive "amrecover" you could make a
dumptype that doesn't do "index" that should eliminate the ufsrestore
process. Running fewer dumps in parallel should help, too.
I don't know a lot ab
--On Friday, March 19, 2004 18:00:01 + Simon Lorenz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a Solaris 8 system running Amanda that ginds to a hault when the
> backups are running. Amanda and the sub processes take all avliable CPU.
> This is dispite having compression set to none (using tape devic
I have a Solaris 8 system running Amanda that ginds to a hault when the
backups are running. Amanda and the sub processes take all avliable CPU.
This is dispite having compression set to none (using tape device). It is
primarily the snedbackup, dumper and ufsrestore processes that are causing
trhe
