On Saturday 21 September 2002 02:24, Frank Smith wrote:
>--On Friday, September 20, 2002 21:19:43 -0400 Gene Heskett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'd think that rather than larger tapes, faster drives would be
>> higher on the list, if for no other reason than to get the
>> darned job done befor
--On Friday, September 20, 2002 21:19:43 -0400 Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> I'd think that rather than larger tapes, faster drives would be
> higher on the list, if for no other reason than to get the darned
> job done before the offices open in the morning. Here, it
> occasio
On Friday 20 September 2002 19:57, Michael Hannon wrote:
>Greetings. We've been happily running Amanda on a number of
> different systems around here for several years. Up to this
> point, we've always used a single tape drive (usually
> high-capacity) on each tape server. Now we're getting to
--On Friday, September 20, 2002 16:57:33 -0700 Michael Hannon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greetings. We've been happily running Amanda on a number of different systems
>around here for several years. Up to this point, we've always used a single tape
>drive (usually high-capacity) on each ta
Greetings. We've been happily running Amanda on a number of different
systems around here for several years. Up to this point, we've always used
a single tape drive (usually high-capacity) on each tape server. Now we're
getting to the point where disk capacity is exploding. Tape capacity is
