I just use a stock kernel (Debian Linux) with my amanda servers. I
seem not to have had trouble with doing this. The biggest
bottlenecks for me lie on the client side. That is, I end up waiting
a long time for clients to compress data and send it to the amanda
server. So I doubt optimization on the server side would make any
difference for me. For me, the advantages of stock kernels are that
I can easily upgrade, and most "extras" on the kernel are modules,
so they're easily accessible if I ever need them.

As for a stripped down system, again Debian comes through for me.
The basic Debian install is about 40 MB and includes all the basic
tools I need. Add amanda server and client packages plus
dependencies and a few extra tools I use like ssh, and I'm up to 50
or 60 MB. At that point, I don't believe much else could be stripped
out without hurting something.

Stefan G. Weichinger said:
>
> Hi, Amanda-Users,
>
> I´m thinking about building a system dedicated to just run Amanda at
> its best.
>
> I want to strip down a linux-system to the basics needed for backup.
> Just the necessary hard- and software, rock-solid and fast.
>
> As the brand new kernel compiles in another window on my desktop I
> think about compiling a kernel that just supports the basic backup
> hardware and leaves stuff like sound or isdn away.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Does it make sense to spend time and thoughts on stripping the
> system
> down?
>
> I know from years of using Amanda that the bottlenecks lie elsewhere
> but I would like to build a very minimal system which I could offer
> to
> my clients as a kind of "Amanda-Box" doing just what it should.
>
> I would like to hear your thoughts on this topic, maybe some of you
> have already done stuff like specific kernel-compilations to satisfy
> Amanda´s needs.
>
> I´m looking forward to your answers.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stefan.
>
>
>


-- 
Kurt Yoder
Sport & Health network administrator