Amanda-Users

Strugging with splits in 2.5.0

2006-04-04 10:57:49
Subject: Strugging with splits in 2.5.0
From: Bruce Thompson <drllama AT otherother DOT com>
To: amanda-users AT amanda DOT org
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 07:54:06 -0700
Hi all,

I'm trying to get amanda 2.5.0 set up on a small network at home. I've got one large partition I'm using as a disk tape area where I've got DVD sized tapes that I will burn to
DVD-R as they complete.

My tape size is set to 4000Meg and I've defined my dumptypes to set tape_splitsize to
400Meg.

The problem I'm running into is that the split size appears to be ignored. I've only set up the server so far and it's complaining about two partitions (amstatus output below):

chekov.otherother.com:/home 0 planner: [dump larger than available tape space,
5089230 KB, but cannot incremental dump new disk]
chekov.otherother.com:/opt 0 planner: [dump larger than available tape space,
14743965 KB, but cannot incremental dump new disk]

These two partitions have the largest usage on my server, what worries me is that the two PowerBooks I plan to add each have partitions with significant usage and I expect to see
similar errors when I add them.

Here's the relevant bits from amanda.conf:

define tapetype HARD_DISK {
    length 4000 mbytes
}
tapetype HARD_DISK

define dumptype user-tar-span {
    root-tar
    tape_splitsize 400m
    split_diskbuffer "/opt/amanda/splits"
    comment "tape-spanning user partitions dumped with tar"
    priority medium
}

define dumptype comp-user-tar-span {
    user-tar-span
    compress client fast
}

define dumptype comp-opt-tar-span {
    comp-user-tar-span
    exclude "amanda"
}


and from disklist:

chekov.otherother.com / comp-root-tar
chekov.otherother.com /boot comp-user-tar-span
chekov.otherother.com /home comp-user-tar-span
chekov.otherother.com /opt comp-opt-tar-span
chekov.otherother.com /tmp comp-user-tar-span
chekov.otherother.com /usr comp-user-tar-span
chekov.otherother.com /usr/local comp-user-tar-span
chekov.otherother.com /var comp-user-tar-span


Any ideas?

Thanks much!
Bruce.


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>