On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 08:32:31AM -0500, Dan Willis wrote:
> Has anyone successfully used an NFS mount as a secondary holding disk?
Haven't tried it.
> Can backups still be run through dump or should they all be tar
> going this route?
I don't see offhand why it would make a difference. From the
Amanda server's point of view, they're both just byte streams
coming in over a socket.
> Or is this just not advisable at all?
Perhaps this is overly alarmist, but over on the info-cvs list,
the common wisdom is that people should *not* access their CVS
repositories over NFS, but use the CVS client/server protocol
instead. That's because interoperability problems between
different O/S's have been known to knock holes out of files
(whole blocks of NULs instead of the data that should be there).
A recent thread discussed the problem, and the circumstances in
which one can probably get away with NFS-mounting one's repo.
See this message from Larry Jones, one of the main CVS
maintainers at this point, and a guy who, IMO, generally seems to
know what he's talking about:
http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/info-cvs/2003-10/msg00060.html
and the final paragraph of this one:
http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/info-cvs/2003-10/msg00064.html
(The rest of the thread is of less interest, since it deals with
more CVS-specific issues.)
There are circumstances in which that problem isn't as critical
(e.g. CVS working directories; since everything's in the repo
anyway, all you risk is your latest round of changes). But a
backup isn't the kind of thing I'd want to gamble with --
especially not a compressed one, where an error would trash the
rest of the file!
--
| | /\
|-_|/ > Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont. erics AT telepres DOT com
| | /
When I came back around from the dark side, there in front of me would
be the landing area where the crew was, and the Earth, all in the view
of my window. I couldn't help but think that there in front of me was
all of humanity, except me.
- Michael Collins, Apollo 11 Command Module Pilot
|
