->>In response to your message<<-
  --received from Paul Bijnens--
>
> Paul Yeatman wrote:
> >Hi, don't seem to find much concerning "wireless" when searching the
> >mailing list.
> >
> >I'm attempting an amanda backup of a computer on the wireless network
> >for the first time.  Just preceeding this is compiling amanda on an
> >Apple powerpc and getting that to work.  This has gone well.  The
> >number of Apple laptops in our research group has been noticably
> >increasing as has the need for a way to back them up.  I'd like to use
> >amanda for this if I can make it work.  Adding to this is that several
> >such Apple laptop users have so far exclusively used the wireless
> >network.  I'm just now experimenting with whether it will work to back
> >up these laptops over a wireless network using amanda.
> 
> It should work, but I'm not sure what happens to the ether when 10
> laptops start sending each 10 gigabyte over the precious resource like
> the shared radiowaves all accessing the Access Point.
> Lot's of collisions I guess.
> I still remember when we did not have switch, only hubs (10Mb), and all 
> ethernet packets where seen by all computers (only 20 or so!).  Copying
> anything larger than 100 megabyte over the network made the rest of the
> network crawl like a snail.
> 
> 
> >I have successfully performed this feat on a home directory just over 3
> >gigs.  When I try the full "/" partiion (17 gigs), however. it times
> >out during the estimate.  I had already increased the estimate timeout
> >on the server side to be 900s.  From where it appears to be failing,
> >given the amandad log on the client, increasing the timeout limit more
> >won't help
> >
> >     .
> >     .
> >     .
> >     Amanda 2.4 REP HANDLE 001-3003BD2A55000000 SEQ 1132177077
> >     OPTIONS features=fffffeff9ffe7f;
> >     / 0 SIZE 17648380
> >     ----
> >
> >     amandad: time 1249.536: dgram_recv: timeout after 10 seconds
> 
> Seems that the estimate took 1249 seconds, and indeed, 349 seconds
> earlier, the server gave up waiting for this client.
> You should increase etimeout to at least 1300 (better double that,
> because next time, amanda could ask an estimate for level 0, level N,
> and level N+1 for each disklistentry!)
> 

Ah, thank you so much!  I didn't catch that!  I saw only the 

        "timeout after 10 seconds"

which I couldn't see as having any relation to the 900s I was
allowing.  I very much suppose that will do it as long as I don't run
into a problem with the your first concern mentioned.

Thanks again!

Paul