On Tuesday 04 November 2003 09:36, Brian Cuttler wrote:
>Gene,
>
>> You have over 5 gigabytes of mail? I find that hard to believe,
>> not even a major spammer would have that much.
>
><having nothing to do with the actual discussion>
>
Of course not Brian :-)
>Depends, number of users, number of users that use eudora and keep
>mail on server, attachments... I've got close to 50 gig of mail on
>my mailhost system - and you aught to see what the Lotus Notes users
>have in the way of mail...
I wuld discourage the use of a mailer that leaves that much read mail
on the server. The client, once having downloaded it for the users
pleasure, really should command the server to delete it. Or the
server should clean house after about 40 days or less. As a user, my
Mail dir is 650k. And I have kmail trained to delete after 60 days
in most folders.
>---
> Brian R Cuttler brian.cuttler AT wadsworth DOT org
> Computer Systems Support (v) 518 486-1697
> Wadsworth Center (f) 518 473-6384
> NYS Department of Health Help Desk 518 473-0773
>
>> On Tuesday 04 November 2003 01:06, Turgut Kalfaoglu wrote:
>> >Hello - I am making great progress with Amanda; now backing up
>> > three systems. (For some reason, samba backups did not work for
>> > me; but installing the amanda client on our windows server did
>> > the trick; I can backup over that). We have a dedicated machine
>> > to do the backups, and it backs up two unix servers (one Linux
>> > one SunOS 5.8), and a windows machine.
>> >
>> >One puzzling thing is that our SunOS system seems to
>> >take a very long time making backups. I started a full backup
>> > about 12 hours ago, and it's still running. If I wait long
>> > enough, it finishes (I did it once before), but I would like it
>> > to finish in a regular timeframe. There is no bottleneck as far
>> > as I can tell; the machines are mostly idle; the network
>> > connection is 100MB like the other machines. I am not very good
>> > at reading the 'amstatus' output so I thought I would ask for
>> > help from this very helpful group..
>> >
>> >[amanda@yedek amanda]$ amstatus home | more
>> >Using /usr/adm/amanda/DailySet1/amdump from Mon Nov 3 23:25:26
>> > EET 2003
>> >
>> >home:/etc 0 6296k finished (23:46:28)
>> >home:/usr/local 0 552408k finished (3:32:29)
>> >home:/usr/users 0 1516665k dumping to tape (3:32:29)
>> >home:/var/spool/mail 0 5028910k wait for dumping
>>
>> You have over 5 gigabytes of mail? I find that hard to believe,
>> not even a major spammer would have that much.
>>
>> >SUMMARY part real estimated
>> > size size
>> >partition : 4
>> >estimated : 4 7227450k
>> >flush : 0 0k
>> >failed : 0 0k ( 0.00%)
>> >wait for dumping: 1 5028910k ( 69.58%)
>> >dumping to tape : 1 1516665k ( 20.98%)
>> >dumping : 0 0k 0k ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%)
>> >dumped : 3 2075369k 2198540k ( 94.40%) ( 28.72%)
>> >wait for writing: 0 0k 0k ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%)
>> >wait to flush : 0 0k 0k (100.00%) ( 0.00%)
>> >writing to tape : 0 0k 0k ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%)
>> >failed to tape : 0 0k 0k ( 0.00%) ( 0.00%)
>> >taped : 2 558704k 681875k ( 81.94%) ( 7.73%)
>> >3 dumpers idle : not-idle
>> >taper writing, tapeq: 0
>> >network free kps: 6570
>> >holding space : 0k ( 0.00%)
>> > dumper0 busy : 4:03:57 (100.00%)
>> > taper busy : 4:03:57 (100.00%)
>> > 0 dumpers busy : 0:00:00 ( 0.00%)
>> > 1 dumper busy : 4:03:57 (100.00%) not-idle:
>> > 4:03:57 (100.00%)
>> >
>> >I just checked the 'home' system; the one that's being backed up,
>> > and it shows that 'tar' is running, likewise for two
>> > 'sendbackup' processes. The last entry in /tmp/amanda belongs to
>> > amandad, and it has not been updated for about 4 hours. it
>> > reads:
>> >CONNECT DATA 921 MESG 922 INDEX 923
>> >OPTIONS features=fffffeff9ffe0f;
>> >----
>> >
>> >amandad: time 0.133: got packet:
>> >----
>> >Amanda 2.4 ACK HANDLE 000-A8E80608 SEQ 1067894728
>> >----
>> >
>> >amandad: time 0.133: pid 8343 finish time Tue Nov 4 03:29:37
>> > 2003
>> >
>> >I guess this means that it finished.
>> >
>> >PS: I dont have a tape drive define; I backup to disk using the
>> > very useful chg-disk "changer". Therefore I did not define any
>> > holding disks.
>> >
>> >I'd appreciate any feedback..
>> >Thanks, -turgut
>>
>> I sure don't see, from the above report, a reason it should be so
>> slow. Is the system quiet, or are the drives being hammered by
>> seeks?
>>
>> Whatever you find, we would be interested in the fix for our own
>> edification.
>>
>> >-----
>> >Turgut Kalfaoglu: http://www.kalfaoglu.com
>> >EgeNet Internet Services: http://www.egenet.com.tr
>>
>> --
>> Cheers, Gene
>> AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M
>> Athlon1600XP@1400mhz 512M
>> 99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
>> Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message
>> by Gene Heskett are:
>> Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
--
Cheers, Gene
AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M
Athlon1600XP@1400mhz 512M
99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
|
