On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 01:07:35AM +0100, Paul Bijnens wrote:

> >Yes, I know. This is the reason that I asked whether it would be possible
> >to change the copy operation into a rename operation for the file: output
> >driver.
> It's not as easy as that: the header on a holdingdisk file is different
> from that on a tape file (even a tape file on disk).
> Moreover, the holdingdisk backup can be split into chunks, while the 
> tape file (currently) cannot.  Simply moving the file would not be enough.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

> But, if you say that the holdingdisk is a different disk than your
> virtual tapedisk, then you can't move without copying the data too :-)

Oh, I would move holding disk to the vdisk drive if it would be possible.

> PS. personnally I've never seen the behaviour you described.  My
> backup server has a loadavg of 10 to 15 when the backups run, but
> the system still keeps very responsive for interactive commands,
> e.g. doing an amstatus etc.  I do not run X on it (it does not even
> have a screen attached permanently).
> It is a 300 MHz pentium with 128 Mbyte RAM with Linux 2.4.20,
> with a 80 Gbyte IDE holding disk an 2 AIT-1 tape drives:  not the
> fastest machine in the world, but still capable of backing up
> about 220 Gbyte in less than 8 hours in my archive run in the weekends.

You don't use virtual tapedisk, so it's no wonder that you don't see this
effect. Please try to copy really huge files from one disk drive to an other.

-- 
-- Josef Wolf -- jw AT raven.inka DOT de --