Amanda-Users

Re: PORT-WRITE/PORT-DUMP questions with tape spanning

2007-07-16 12:52:22
Subject: Re: PORT-WRITE/PORT-DUMP questions with tape spanning
From: Jean-Francois Malouin <Jean-Francois.Malouin AT bic.mni.mcgill DOT ca>
To: amanda-users AT amanda DOT org
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:12:58 -0400
* Jon LaBadie <jon AT jgcomp DOT com> [20070713 13:29]:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 12:31:57PM -0400, Jean-Francois Malouin wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > What happens when a DLE on a client goes to tape directly (PORT-WRITE)
> > because it can't fit in the holding disk and it bigger than tape
> > capacity? Is it possible to use tape spanning in that case?
> 
> I don't believe holding disk or direct to tape matters to
> the tape spanning feature.

I thought that if the DLE could fit in the holding disk then
amanda would first dump it there and then write it to tape
when the entire DLE has been dumped.

> > One more: I have this DLE on a client using a tape-spanning dumptype
> > along with calcsize. Previously I was using excludes/includes but
> > yesterday I decided to have a go with spanning. I thought I'd fool
> > amanda by not forcing a full dump but then this situation happens:
> 
> Its not nice to fool Mother Amanda ;)

Just once! I'll never do it again I promise! :)

> What do excludes/includes have to do with tape spanning?  Do you mean
> you created a new DLE that covered several DLE you previously used?
> If so, it must do a level 0.

Yes, I had a catch all DLE that I turned into a spanning-tape dumptype
and I got rid of all the other chunks.

> > calcsize reported a incremental of 32MB but that was way off as 11
> > chunks of 9GB were written to tape (8 on one tape and 3 others on the
> > next tape) then amanda reported 'dump to tape filed' and gave up.
> > Since that DLE is over 200GB and the holdingdisk use is 100GB I
> > suspect amanda gave because it thought that there was no more holdind
> > disk. amdump Right?
> 
> I may be mistaken, but I don't think that is right.  Amanda would not
> start to tape from the holding disk unless the DLE was complete on the
> holding disk.  And if it was going direct to tape, the holding disk
> is not involved.
> 
> Are you sure those "11 x 9GB = 99GB" weren't just the entire dump
> after compression?

There is no compression involved.

Anyways this is all moot as I forced a full and seems happy now.
That will teach me to mess with amanda!

thanks!
jf

> 
> -- 
> Jon H. LaBadie                  jon AT jgcomp DOT com
>  JG Computing
>  4455 Province Line Road        (609) 252-0159
>  Princeton, NJ  08540-4322      (609) 683-7220 (fax)

-- 
<° ><

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