On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 05:06:08PM -0800, Jay Lessert wrote:
> [Posted and Cc'ed]

Why?  I subscribe... :-)

> My last posting on this thread, we're in tapeout crunch right now...
> 
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 03:43:13PM -0800, John Oliver wrote:
> > No, not really... :-)  My tapes are 20GB without compression.  I'm
> > telling amanda to use compression.  It looks like it's saying it is.
> 
> And it is, in fact.
> 
> > Therefore, I should be able to get *at least* 20GB on my tapes.
> 
> You will get exactly 20GB on the tape, after Amanda compression.

The tape is 20GB native, 40GB compressed.  If amanda is only capable of
compressing by 0%, then I would submit that its' compression algorithms
either *really* suck, or simply don't work.  Since I really doubt that,
I would further submit that maybe amanda *isn't* compressing, after all.
If you say it is, then I would appreciate an explanation of how
"compressing" 20GB of data to just fit on a 20GB tape is a useful
feature.

<Snipped> everything else, since it's based on a debated point of
order... :-)

-- 
John Oliver, CCNA                            http://www.john-oliver.net/
Linux/UNIX/network consulting         http://www.john-oliver.net/resume/
***               sendmail, Apache, ftp, DNS, spam filtering         ***
****                Colocation, T1s, web/email/ftp hosting          ****