On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 11:53:57PM +0200, Vlad Popa wrote:
> Hello Jon !
> Jon LaBadie schrieb:
> >On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 12:05:21PM +0200, Vlad Popa wrote:
> >>Dear Paul,
> >>Paul Bijnens schrieb:
> >>>Vlad Popa wrote:
> >>>>So how can I say "Not so fast, Mrs. Amanda !" when taping ?
> >>>Are you 100% sure that is the problem??
> >I'll ask Paul's question slightly differently.
> >How can you WANT to run any slower (see below).
> >>DUMP SUMMARY:
> >>HOSTNAME DISK L ORIG-kB OUT-kB COMP% MMM:SS KB/s MMM:SS KB/s
> >>-------------------------- --------------------------------- ------------
> >>h50234 /etc 0 2440 2440 -- 0:03 930.1 9:26 4.3
> >This was your biggest, and speediest successful taping.
> >It only ran at 4300 bytes/sec
> > 1/4 megabyte per minute
> > 15 megabytes per HOUR
> >If you will pay me, I'll hand write the data. It might be faster :))
> Jon, I'd pay you the money , If I had one (since I 'd be sure the data
> written by you is hand-signed, certificated and prooved to be on my
> vtape..)
> >Something is seriously wrong with your network connection to your vtape.
> >I strongly urge you to fix your network connection rather than continue
> >to try to get amanda (or any application) to work with a broken network.
> You are absolutely right Jon, but I cannot tweak more the lufs. I'm
> afraid, I have to discard this meant-to-be solution.
> I get to the conclusion, that lufs project is not (yet) mature enough to
> work in a amanda scenario when using the ftp feature in my case. (I
> cannot say something about the other parts..)
> I'd rather have a native ftp-client-based (some kind of a vftape
> extension..) amanda solution (I do apologise, I'm not a coder ..) than
> this lufs for my situation working now. The only performance
> improovement I could test was being logged in several times on the
> server (using more lufs channels) but the result was the same.
> I have tested native ftp transfers to this host (beside lufs) which were
> at about 4.3 mb per sec ("ftp hostname" and then "put file ..") for
> several files differring significantly in their size. The rate did not
> fall below 4 megs per sec.
> I like amanda's features because it is really flexible and powerful.
> Do you see any solutions working for my situation without abandoning
> using amanda? What about "vtape"-ing locally and transfering the
> directory by Mr. Cron to the ftp server ? (for this I needed a
> automatic script-based ftpclient for upload as wget is for download )
I'm still focused on onsite backups using vtapes. But, eventually I'm
thinking of using rsync to copy vtapes to some (yet to materialize)
offsite storage facility. I'm not sure how to decide what to keep
offsite as I will likely have much more onsite storage. Perhaps if I
have, say, 40 days worth of vtape space (tapecycle = 40 tapes) on site
I'll shoot for keeping the most recent dumpcycle's worth of vtapes off
site.
I usually use rsync with rsh=ssh. I'm not sure if rsync can use ftp. Is
ftp the only protocol you can use to access your off site storage?
--
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki | Systems Administrator
Technical Operations Division | Radio Free Asia
2025 M Street, NW | Washington, DC 20036 | 202-530-4900
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the addressee and
may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Any
unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please contact
network AT rfa DOT org.
|
