On Thursday 15 August 2002 14:49, John Koenig wrote:
>>My motto:  Disk is cheap, don't skimp on holding disk.
>
>Yup... after I deployed a 181 GB drive for our holding disk, I saw
>somewhat different behavior in amstatus... though I would have
>expected the total time of the backups to drop (compared to a
>relatively small 25 GB holding space I used before) they did
> not... I conclude this was because the entire run is tape i/o
> bound... Holding disk usage on the runs with this disk were about
> 90% capacity... so the clients were not taking so long to
> complete their data transfers...
>
>This would seem to indicate I need to double this amount of space
> to hold 2 days of backups, currently... I'd like to have a week's
> worth, actually.... in case the tape goes South and replacement
> is not easy and quick.
>
>So does the chunksize parameter affect performance in any way?

Only in that it prevents troubles with a filesystem that can't 
handle large files.  There was, at the time amanda was first 
deployed, a 2gig limit to the filesize in many of its various 
platforms filesystems.  Many of those limits are now historical, 
but you'd hate to find it out by doing a recovery and having it 
blow up because a tape of 20gigs was all one big file.

>thx

-- 
Cheers, Gene
AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M
Athlon1600XP@1400mhz  512M
99.11% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly