Re: Several large partitions, no spool
2004-11-30 18:41:41
On Tuesday 30 November 2004 11:55, Brian Cuttler wrote:
>Gene,
>Stefan,
>
>I should clarify further...
>
>Extracted from "disklist"
>samar / comp-root
>samar /usr1 comp-user
>samar /usr5/amanda {
> user-tar
> }
>
>Extracted from "amanda.conf"
>
>define dumptype comp-root {
> global
> comment "Root partitions with compression"
> compress client fast
> priority low
>}
>
>define dumptype comp-user {
> global
> comment "Non-root partitions on reasonably fast machines"
> compress client fast
> priority medium
>}
>
>define dumptype user-tar {
> program "GNUTAR"
> comment "user partitions dumped with tar"
> compress
> index
># exclude list
> priority medium
>}
>
Ok, I stand a bit corrected, I think both of us naturaly assumed you
were using tar, and in fact, in this clarifying message, there is no
reference to xfsdump. Is this in the "global" definition?
>ya know, I'm not seeing it explicitely but the default is to
>dump via xfsdump (I have no efs partitions on this box). I
>don't believe the dump of either root nor /usr1 is causing a
>problem and think that I've got the proper definitions to subdivide
>the raid (mounted on /usr5) into directories.
>
>I've written the technical contact for the departement and assigned
>/usr5/dumps which is NOT a DLE to act as amanda's holding area. This
>however is a far from optimal solution. Raid is nice but still must
>suffer from I/O contention and the jukebox/SDLT is on the same bus.
>
> My initial analysis was correct ?
>
> Without a holding area than any DLE being written direct
> to tape will fail and not be retried when the next tape
> is loaded into the drive from the jukebox.
Dump programs in general do not have an exclude function as they are
low level dump/restore operations paying no attention to the
directory structures. They do the whole, complete
partition/filesytem without any exceptions that I'm aware of.
Translated another way, this means that if you are using /usr5/dumps
as a holding area, and /usr5 IS a partition and a DLE, then you have
a recursive situation because the dump will be trying to dump its own
dumps. At best this would lead to "interesting" results, but not
something one would want to repeat intentionally.
>I haven't followed the thread as closely as I could have. There is
>a patch for spaning DLE across output/tape volumes ? Would it be
>effecatious in a direct to tape senario like this one ? Is it ready
>for prime-time ?
Yes, there was one published, probably a year ago, and while it was
discussed at the time, the basic framework for amanda simply doesn't
want to take a chance on breaking up the file, it leads to all sorts
of scenarios that reduce the dependability considerably, usually
right when you need a solid backup the most.
You can probably search the archives of this list for mentions and
links. And, whether that patch wwould apply to todays code is a
quarter toss with the tails side of the coin 20x heavier than the
heads. Lots has been changed/adjusted since.
> thank you,
>
> Brian
[...]
--
Cheers Brian, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.29% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attorneys please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2004 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Several large partitions, no spool, Brian Cuttler
- Re: Several large partitions, no spool, Stefan G. Weichinger
- Re: Several large partitions, no spool, Stefan G. Weichinger
- Re: Several large partitions, no spool, Brian Cuttler
- Re: Several large partitions, no spool, Eric Siegerman
- Re: Several large partitions, no spool, Eric Siegerman
- Re: Several large partitions, no spool, Stefan G. Weichinger
|
|
|