To: Anthony Worrall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NFS mounted holding disk
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:51:17 -0400
From: Paul Lussier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Scanner: exiscan *14pWpZ-BM-00*1pxFlM.Ffuc*
http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan
: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 5:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NFS mounted holding disk
To: Anthony Worrall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NFS mounted holding disk
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:51:17 -0400
From: Paul Lussier [EMAIL
L PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: NFS mounted holding disk
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:32:03 -0400
X-Scanner: exiscan *14pt4u-0004vx-00*ccNglIAG/2M*
http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/
Here's a bad idea for you: Install Amanda server on both the NFS server and
the tape server; Run amdump on the NFS s
In a message dated: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:42:13 BST
Anthony Worrall said:
One reason would be the NFS server has a 1Gb interface and the clients and
tape server have only 100Mb.
Okay, so now you're saturating the 100Mb interface on the tape server
twice? I still don't see the advantage in
In fact I would like it if the clients could dump directly to the NFS mounted
holding disk rather than via the tape server.
Seems to me a better plan would be to run amdump on the NFS server and
make taper the remote piece. This keeps the single driver controlling
all the pieces (and not
Anthony Worrall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: "John R. Jackson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Using a NFS mounted holding disk doesn't seem possible ...
I would consider that a feature :-). Why in the world would you drag
a bunch of dump images across the network to an Amanda server and then
Using a NFS mounted holding disk doesn't seem possible ...
I would consider that a feature :-). Why in the world would you drag
a bunch of dump images across the network to an Amanda server and then
send them back across the network, using NFS of all things, then turn
around and drag them back
