[geeks] amanda

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On Saturday, November 10, 2001 at 09:34:14 (-0500), Rob wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [geeks] amanda
>
> Difficult if not impossible. Amanda should still be considered in the
> Alpha stages and has whole hordes of problems doing real life backups.
> These problems are not limited to:
> 
> 1)Unable to span data to tapes.
> 2)Unreliable support for autoloaders.
> 3)No recovery mechanism for failed backups.
> 4)Unable to use one tape for multiple backup jobs. (i.e. once you've
> dumped something to the tape, you can't use the balance of the tape for
> anything else.)
> 5)Since you're doing this over cablemodem, you'll have to design your own
> encryption method for the dump. (You may be able to hack it to tunnel
> through ssh.)
> 
> You're in for a lot of pain if you try.

Huh?!?!?!?  I don't know what "real world" you inhabit, but none of the
above are problems for me.  I've been using Amanda _very_ relialbly for
the past few years in several installations!

#1 isn't a problem unless you make it a problem.  Most people have no
problem ensuring their backup devices are larger than their largest
filesystem, or conversely making their filesystems smaller than their
backup device.

#2 is definitely not a problem -- I've been using SCSI changers all
along and they work VERY reliably with Amanda.

As for #3, well there actualy are mechanisms for handling failed backups
(eg. when a tape goes bad, or a machine crashes.)  RTFM.

#4 isn't a problem Since Amanda figures out how to best allocate backup
space and you just have to learn to leave it's media alone -- use
another tape if you want to do some manual backups!!!!

Amanda 2.5 will be able to make secure use of a network connection.


-- 
							Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <gwoods at acm.org>     <woods at robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods at planix.com>;   Secrets of the Weird <woods at weird.com>