On Wednesday 28 August 2002 14:30, Gene Heskett wrote:
>On Wednesday 28 August 2002 13:20, Amy Tanner wrote:
>>On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 01:06:37PM -0400, Gene Heskett
>
>(gene_heskett AT iolinc DOT net) wrote:
>>> It rather sounds like you need to allow more time for the
>>> process to run.  Thats configurable with a couple of variables
>>> in your amanda.conf file, along with some explanatory test
>>> describing them.
>>
>>I did check the dtimeout value.  It was set to 3600, which seemed
>> like it should be enough.  I'll increase it to 7200 and see what
>> happens.
>
>3600 certainly does seem like enough, thats ten hours!

Doh!  Must have punched the wrong button, I get 1 hour=60 minutes 
the next time.  Am I forgiven?

>What about the etimeout value?  Thats the amount of time allowed
>forf the estimate phase's report to come back.
>
>>If the dump is timing out, shouldn't amanda properly kill the
>> processes though?
>
>Thats a question for J.R.J. I'm afraid, John?
>
>>> >I'm using dump with hardware compression (no software
>>> > compression) > > on
>>
>>all machines & file systems.  > > The use of hardware compression
>> as opposed to software compression > can also be a course of
>> 'gotchas'.  When hardware compression is > used, amanda doesn't
>> have a very good idea how much data a tape can > hold, so you
>> have to set the tape capacities conservatively, which > on big
>> tapes can result in gigabytes of under utilization.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>I've read about the advantages of software compression over
>>hardware compression and I agree.  I'm not the primary amanda
>>administrator - I'm just filling in while he's gone and
>> attempting to fix the problems - but I will make the
>> recommendation to switch.
>>
>>Will the using hardware compression cause the dumps to take
>> longer?
>
>Not normally because the hardware usually doubles the bandwidth
> the drive can handle at its input when its on.  In the real
> world, software can beat that, when measured in terms of raw
> input from the disks, back to raw output to the disks IF the time
> to do the software compression/decompression is removed from the
> timeing measurements.  And thats the only fair bandwidth
> comparison IMO.
>
>> We recently switched to hardware compression because we
>> got a new tape changer.  Perhaps that's the cause of the
>> problems.
>
>Is it slower in terms of mega(or kilo)bytes/second i/o speeds?
>
>>  These 2 machines were not having problems previously
>> when we were doing software compression for everything.
>>
>>Thank you for your recommendations - I appreciate it.
>
>You're welcome.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M
Athlon1600XP@1400mhz  512M
99.13% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly