>
>> Well, as an ex-Auspex as well as ex-Legato employee I'd have to state
>> that unless Auspex has done some work that I don't know about, going
>> from the SP/FP *through* the HP to a DLT would be real performance
>> lose.
>
>As compared to what?  As compared to going out over the network??
>

No, going from SP<>APM<>SP as mediated by the FP.

>> Or have you shoved the DLT into an SP slot?  If so, well, hmm...
>> probably really *is* an index problem- after all, the HP<>FP<>SP path
>> was never supposed to be *that* fast; it's too bad that Auspex and
>> legato never got together to embed the backup hooks into the FP where
>> they really should be.
>
>As an Auspex customer, I'm glad they didn't do that.  It would be
>wasted (for us) effort we (along with all other Auspex customers) would
>have had to pay for.  We use Amanda, and I'd strongly resist going to a
>commercial binary-only (and undocumented) backup package.

Well, Legato's got some documented stuff. Auspex doesn't. Like
I said in my mail, I don't really know Amanda really well, and
if it works for you great.

I really only meant that the data path performance issue meant
that putting backup filesystem hooks into the FP would be the
right thing to do- but that's from the perspective of working
with all of the software and not thinking about portions of it
being 'hidden'... Sorry...


>
><lots of Auspex bashing snipped out>
>

Well, sorry. I, for one, would have been glad to see the interfaces
published. Actually, I believe that most of the interfaces could
have been inferred from some include files, but I can't really remember.