Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 at 12:55pm, Toralf Lund wrote

Paul Bijnens wrote:

Taping one DLE is several "runs" opens a can of worms:  you have to
add a notion of "partial" succeeded.  Restoring then needs some tapes
and some holdingdisk files.  What if the holdingdisk crashes or
accidently rm the files before all of it is written to tape? etc.

This would be a bit of an issue, of course. I'm wondering if the would the situation be that much different from the one we have today, though. Holding disk crash or file removal is always going to be a serious problem, of course. But if you have a partial tape dump of the data, you will at least be able to recover some of it... Maybe it would be wise to keep all data on the

To throw my $.02 in here, the situations would be very different. If one is "forced" to have all DLEs "tapeable" in one amdump run, then (theoretically), nothing will be left on the holding disk to lose should said disk die.

That's obviously not the case if single DLEs are allowed to span amdumps, and the holding disk dies between amdumps.

Having the entire night's amdump run on tape at the end of the amdump gives me that warm fuzzy feeling inside.

Maybe it's just me being curmudgeonly (it wouldn't be the first time -- hell, I haven't found a WM I like more than fvwm2) and slavishly adhering to the KISS method. But I think backups *should* adhere to the KISS method.

What happens in the current version if amdump is interrupted while writing the 2nd tape, by the way?

I assume the same thing that would happen if amdump were interrupted while writing to the 1st tape. The image being written to tape would be marked FAILED TO TAPE and be left on the holding disk (along with any other images that hadn't been written yet), and the user would be encouraged to run amflush.