Author: rorycl <amanda-forum AT backupcentral DOT com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:17:17 -0400
I'm going to cross-post this text on the Amanda and Bacula lists. Apologies in advance if you see this twice. Our company is about to provide centralised backups for several pools of backup data of b
Author: Chris Hoogendyk <hoogendyk AT bio.umass DOT edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:23:06 -0400
rorycl wrote: An important aspect of the system is that the tapes should be readable for 12 years, by other parties if necessary. From this point of view we like the idea of providing a CD with each
Author: Charles Curley <charlescurley AT charlescurley DOT com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:05:47 -0600
I assume you already have verified that your tapes will last that long before print-through makes them unreadable. Another thought is to provide a CD/DVD of a suitable distribution of Linux with Aman
Others have mentioned that even without amanda software, amanda backups are recoverable with standard unix/linux tools. I question whether the concept of providing the software is reasonable. Program
Author: Charles Curley <charlescurley AT charlescurley DOT com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 07:14:34 -0600
Oh, folks 12 years hence ought to be able to dig out 12 year old computers to run their 12 year old distributions on. I suspect the bottle neck will be finding drives to read LT04 tapes; maybe keep o
Author: Rory Campbell-Lange <rory AT campbell-lange DOT net>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:50:23 +0100
Many thanks for this note, Charles, and to the other notes Chris, Charles and Jon about their commentary about using Amanda to provide a long-term archive format. The points about being able to use s
Author: Chris Hoogendyk <hoogendyk AT bio.umass DOT edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:28:19 -0400
Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: On 13/08/09, Charles Curley (charlescurley AT charlescurley DOT com) wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:08:03 -0400 Jon LaBadie <jon AT jgcomp DOT com> wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 20
Author: Rory Campbell-Lange <rory AT campbell-lange DOT net>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:57:45 +0100
Hi Chris I liked this idea about tape archives -- constant pruning and maintenance. Difficult to sell though. <snip> Great; thanks for the pointers. <snip> If all the storage is locally attached (act
Author: Cyrille Bollu <Cyrille.Bollu AT fedasil DOT be>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:19:18 +0200
Hi, Here's my (very) small personnal experience: A few years ago, when I tried it, I couldn't enable server-side software compression while bypassing the holding disk with my IBM ULTIUM LTO-3 drive:
Author: Chris Hoogendyk <hoogendyk AT bio.umass DOT edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:27:01 -0400
A few years ago, when I tried it, I couldn't enable server-side software compression while bypassing the holding disk with my IBM ULTIUM LTO-3 drive: Tape speed was sinking to about 5MB/s. My backup
Author: Chris Hoogendyk <hoogendyk AT bio.umass DOT edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:17:14 -0400
On 13/08/09, Chris Hoogendyk (hoogendyk AT bio.umass DOT edu) wrote: <snip> Typically, we set up Amanda with holding disk space. <snip> If all the storage is locally attached (actually, AoE drives st
You might want to consider configuring for client compression. Not only will that give you more CPU for feeding your tape, it also minimizes network bandwidth. As usual, YMMV, it all depends on where
Author: Rory Campbell-Lange <rory AT campbell-lange DOT net>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 21:30:47 +0100
In our case the server _is_ the only client, with up to 30TB of direct attached storage, with the storage running at between 80MB/s and 120MB/s access speeds (Bytes rather than bytes). I don't know i
Author: Chris Hoogendyk <hoogendyk AT bio.umass DOT edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:03:36 -0400
Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: On 14/08/09, Frank Smith (fsmith AT hoovers DOT com) wrote: Chris Hoogendyk wrote: Amanda will do the compression for you. You define it in the dumptype in amanda.conf. If
Author: Cyrille Bollu <Cyrille.Bollu AT fedasil DOT be>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:21:49 +0200
Hu hu... Interesting... I have a 4 disks RAID-0 holding disk, and it isn't fast... I always wondered if I should use seperated (non-RAID) drives... Cyrille Bollu Responsable systèmes Fedasil - ICT t
Author: Gene Heskett <gene.heskett AT verizon DOT net>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:48:19 -0400
Its been my observation that software raids are slower. Not tremendously so though. When Jim put together a raid-5 with 4 drives several years ago, the drives were about 70meg/sec drives, and the ove
To drive an LTO-4 your holding disk needs to read somewhat over 100MB/sec sequentially, which requires at least 2 drives striped, but should be easy enough with any modern raid controller or softwar
Author: Chris Hoogendyk <hoogendyk AT bio.umass DOT edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:47:22 -0400
Hu hu... Interesting... I have a 4 disks RAID-0 holding disk, and it isn't fast... I always wondered if I should use seperated (non-RAID) drives... Here is an extremely interesting article that every
Author: Rory Campbell-Lange <rory AT campbell-lange DOT net>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:06:33 +0100
<snip> A slow RAID1 off two 7200 RPM SATA disks on a BBU-backed LSI hardware raid controller can do about 62031 KiB/s write and 86399 KiB/s read. Those sorts of numbers improve steadily the number of