Date:        Tue, 18 Dec 2001 09:23:43 +0100
    From:        =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22M=FCller=2C_Markus=22?= <Markus.Mueller@itworks-gmbh.de>
    Message-ID:  <CBE17E30C837D5118ED100E029504D9B01E67C@ITSERVER_PDC.192.168.1.103>

  | did anyone use amanda backup with netbsd?

Yes.

  | If so, would you recommend it?

Yes, I think so.

  | We're using some self-forged scripts for our backups at the time,
  | and I need a better solution...

Same ... we still use the old scripts on non NetBSD systems (and even
those where there is no local tape, so they're being dumped onto something
else which isn't using amanda).   Amanda only on NetBSD at the minute just
because pkgsrc makes it so easy to install there, elsewhere I'd have to
work a bit...

As best I can tell, amanda (though it might be an oldish version I'm using
now) lacks very intelligent tape layout - one day it uses just 20% of the
tape, and next day decides it wants level 0's of lots of things, and can't
make it all fit, so defers dumps to the following day.   If it remembered
that, it would be fine - the big dumps would get spread around, but it
doesn't...

And I'm not sure I see a method to not bother with anything less than level 0
which is needed after a filesystem has been restored (or more accurately,
every dump will dump s much as a level 0, so that's what we may as well do,
or we dump as much, but don't get the benefits).

And I've yet to master amanda's method of tape size calculation...

Aside from those, which long term aren't serious, amanda works very well.
Its dump to disk, then to tape, strategy certainly sped up dumps from
our previous direct onto the tape methods.

kre