On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, John R. Jackson wrote:
>
> I think what he meant was he changed the 'b' flag value on the dump,
> which increases the size of the write() call (and possibly some network
> ioctl sizes).
Yes. (Sorry, I've been down with some Evil bio-virus the last two days)
Note that yo
>How does one configure the blocksize?
Marc was (I assume) referring to old, crufty, icky, by hand scripts he
used in the far past, not wonderful, shiny Amanda :-). I fully intend
to ignore the fact that they were faster :-).
I think what he meant was he changed the 'b' flag value on the dump,
>Does increasing tapebufs improve the speed in which amanda dump to disk ?
No.
>I thought tapebufs was only for dumping to tape ?
Yes.
> Gerhard
John R. Jackson, Technical Software Specialist, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Beattie; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: why | ufsrestore?
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, John R. Jackson wrote:
> >
> > But you're comparing apples and oranges. As you've noted, going from
> > disk to tape on the same machine gets 3
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, John R. Jackson wrote:
>
> But you're comparing apples and oranges. As you've noted, going from
> disk to tape on the same machine gets 3 MBytes/s whether you are using
> ufsdump or Amanda is using taper to copy a holding disk image.
>
> But that's not what happens when A
* Jean-Louis Martineau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 08:59:30AM
-0500)
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 02:42:04PM +0100, Gerhard den Hollander wrote:
> > It's not the compression (or at leat not only the compression) that gives
> > the penalty, but more likely the 5 way split ..
> >
> > As
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 02:42:04PM +0100, Gerhard den Hollander wrote:
> It's not the compression (or at leat not only the compression) that gives
> the penalty, but more likely the 5 way split ..
>
> As long as Im doing incrementals it isn't too bad, since those dump to
> disk, and from disk to
* John R. Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 08:20:30PM -0500)
>>I have always wondered .. why does amanda pipe ufsdump output to ufsrestore
>>before sending it to the tape device?
> It's collecting the index data.
> The dump (or tar) output pipeline is rather complicated. The im
> >I have always wondered .. why does amanda pipe ufsdump output to
> ufsrestore
> >before sending it to the tape device?
>
> It's collecting the index data.
John, thanks for clarifying...
> >If amanda is dumping direct to tape (file systems that are
> bigger than the
> >holding disk), I'm lucky
>I have always wondered .. why does amanda pipe ufsdump output to ufsrestore
>before sending it to the tape device?
It's collecting the index data.
The dump (or tar) output pipeline is rather complicated. The image data
goes back to sendbackup who in turn tee's it to the restore program
to gath
10 matches
Mail list logo
