On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 07:30:34PM -0400, Jean-Louis Martineau wrote:

> > I'm not using a holding disk at all - it doesn't seem to make sense when
> > using the file: device. Perhaps I'm wrong there ? I don't know enough bout
> > amanda's architecture. Perhaps it is a good idea to use a holding disk, even
> > with the file: device, because of the ineraction between dumpers and tapers 
> > ?
> 
> PARALLELISM
> 
> Without holding disk, your dump will be done sequentially, with a holding
> disk, they will be done in parallel.

OK - there's my reason to have a holding disk. But now I've a situation
where the dumps are being done to disk (the holding disk) and then copied to
tape (but with the file: device, actually disk) and then deleted. It would
obviously be much more efficient to use the same partition for holding disk
as for the file: device, then all that the taper process would have to do
would be a simple mv, rather than a copy (of an often quite large file)
followed by a delete. But perhaps this is rather too large a change to put
into 2.4 ?


Kindest regards,


Niall  O Broin