Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:23:58 -0600
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 01:00:39PM -0600, Tracy Di Marco White wrote:
> On 12/27/05, Chris Huebsch <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Dec 2005, Tracy Di Marco White wrote:
> > > We've been adding several 1.2+ TB servers, and it has become no longer
> > > reasonable to put a tape drive on every server, as we had been doing.
> > You do not have a tape drive on every server. AFS Backup can send its
> > backup via network to an other afs-backup-server.
> Right. I started using that on our new servers that we added before
> the new backup server was in production.
> > > Our full backups were taking longer than a day, sometimes three or
> > > four days, and things were set up so that it was more complicated to
> > > do incremental backups while the full backups were running.
> > This is really ugly. Did you evaluate the reason for that? Are the disks
> > to slow, or the tape-drives or the system-bus of your server machines?
> AFS seemed to be our bottleneck.
On my systems, the volserver would max out at around 5MB/sec. Especially
on volumes with lots of small files.
We moved to using amanda-afs which spools to disk first, then dumps to