Messages In This Digest (4
Messages)
Messages
- 1a.
-
Posted by: "Jean-Louis Martineau" martineau zmanda.com?Subject= Re%3A%20Anyone%20using%20Kerberos%20in%202%2E5%2E2%20and%20having%20trouble%20with%20performan">
martineau zmanda.com
Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:47 am (PST)
Klas,
Try amanda-2.5.3alpha-kencrypt.tar.gz from
http://www.zmanda.com/community-builds.php
It add support for the DLE kencrypt option with krb5.
I don't know how to changer the encryption method.
Jean-Louis
Klas Heggemann wrote:
>
> 20 aug 2007 kl. 19.13 skrev Jean-Louis Martineau:
>
>> Klas Heggemann wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> We are inte transition from amanda 2.4.2 to 2.5.2. We seem to have a
>>> working
>>> build and configuration. We've also switched from Solaris 9 to 10,
>>> and newer
>>> hardware.
>>>
>>> However, with 2.5.2 encryption is no longer an option, when using
>>> Kerberos 5 authentication.
>>> The backup server seems to have problems with the backup of nearly
>>> 200 filesystems on 80 hosts.
>> With 2.5.2, krb5 must encrypt nothing or encrypt everything, it is
>> set at compile time with AMANDA_KRB5_ENCRYPT,
>> it must be the same for all clients and server.
>
> Yes we are aware of that. Since Kerbers encryption seems very slow
> (about 2 or 3 times slower
> backus then with ssh). We will not be able to use encryption for all
> filesystems.
>
> If we stick to Amanda, we need to find s a solution. What i have in
> mind is two different
> backup sets, one for encryption and one for non encrypted transfers.
> Perhaps this could be
> a amanda.conf option, so you could use the same binary. The client,
> unfortunatly need to listen
> on different ports.
>
> We will do some tests with this approach and report bac
>
> Another solution could be to use another encryption method. I guess
> 3DES is used, but
> I do not know where the encrytion method is choosen. Ayone who knows?
> Perhaps AES is faster?
>
>
>> Jean-Louis
>
>
> /klas
>
martineau  zmanda.com ?Subject=Re%3A%20Anyone%20using%20Kerberos%20in%202%2E5%2E2%20and%20having%20trouble%20with%20performan">
Reply to sender
|
amanda-hackers@yahoogroups.com?Subject= Re%3A%20Anyone%20using%20Kerberos%20in%202%2E5%2E2%20and%20having%20trouble%20with%20performan">
Reply to group
|
Reply via web post
Messages in this topic
(4)
- 2a.
-
Posted by: "Christopher McCrory" chrismcc pricegrabber.com?Subject= Re%3Adelay%20tape%20write%3F">
chrismcc pricegrabber.com
Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:31 am (PST)
Hello...
I seem to remember a feature request for delaying the start of writing to tape until X%/Xbytes are done dumping and ready to write. It was on sourceforge? zmanda wiki? I cannot seem to find it now. Does anyone know where it was?
Writing 500M to a 800G tape is irritating. I would be willing to sponsor a developer to work on this. Any takers?
--
Christopher McCrory
"The guy that keeps the servers running"
To the optimist, the glass is half full.
To the pessimist, the glass is half empty.
To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
chrismcc  pricegrabb er.com?Subject=Re%3Adelay%20tape%20write%3F">
Reply to sender
|
amanda-hackers@yahoogroups.com?Subject= Re%3Adelay%20tape%20write%3F">
Reply to group
|
Reply via web post
Messages in this topic
(3)
- 2b.
-
Posted by: "Frank Smith" fsmith hoovers.com?Subject= Re%3A%20delay%20tape%20write%3F">
fsmith hoovers.com
Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:41 pm (PST)
Christophe r McCrory wrote:
> Hello...
>
> I seem to remember a feature request for delaying the start of
> writing to tape until X%/Xbytes are done dumping and ready to
> write. It was on sourceforge? zmanda wiki? I cannot seem to
> find it now. Does anyone know where it was?
>
> Writing 500M to a 800G tape is irritating. I would be willing
> to sponsor a developer to work on this. Any takers?
I can see two ways this option would be useful.
First, by having taper wait until 100% of the dumps are finished,
it would avoid the contention on the holding disk and potentially
enable faster streaming to the tape drive, at the expense of needing
enough disk space to hold your entire backup. It could also make
better use of the tape space if my taperorder suggestion below was
implemented.
Second, if you have small backups and large tapes, you could set
it to 90% or so and have Amanda only use a tape when you have run
enough dumps to mostly fill a tape. This might have some interaction
with the autoflush parameter, however.
Also, on a somewhat related note, if taper were to wait until
all the dumps finished, and runtapes is greater than 1, could there
be a taperorder parameter similar to dumporder that would do a
largest-fit write to tape, and avoid trying to write a dump too
large to fit in the remaining space on a tape? I haven't dug in
the code, but taper just seems to work in a FIFO fashion, and
writes until it hits EOT and then starts anew on the next tape with
the failed dump. For runtapes = 2, largest fit would be sufficient,
but for runtapes >=3 perhaps another strategy would be better,
although possibly not by enough to justify the extra code.
Frank
--
Frank Smith fsmith%40hoovers.com">fsmith hoovers.com
Sr. Systems Administrator Voice: 512-374-4673
Hoover's Online Fax: 512-374-4501
fsmith  hoovers.co m?Subject=Re%3A%20delay%20tape%20write%3F">
Reply to sender
|
amanda-hackers@yahoogroups.com?Subject= Re%3A%20delay%20tape%20write%3F">
Reply to group
|
Reply via web post
Messages in this topic
(3)
- 2c.
-
Posted by: "Paul Bijnens" Paul.Bijnens xplanation.com?Subject= Re%3A%20delay%20tape%20write%3F">
Paul.Bijnens xplanation.com
Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:15 am (PST)
On 2007-08-22 01:35, Frank Smith wrote:
> Also, on a somewhat related note, if taper were to wait until
> all the dumps finished, and runtapes is greater than 1, could there
> be a taperorder parameter similar to dumporder that would do a
> largest-fit write to tape, and avoid trying to write a dump too
> large to fit in the remaining space on a tape? I haven't dug in
> the code, but taper just seems to work in a FIFO fashion, and
> writes until it hits EOT and then starts anew on the next tape with
> the failed dump. For runtapes = 2, largest fit would be sufficient,
> but for runtapes >=3 perhaps another strategy would be better,
> although possibly not by enough to justify the extra code.
You're describing the parameter "taperalgo", I believe.
Because there is no "delayed" tapewriting currently, you can
only influence the result of the taperalgo by tuning the
"dumporder" and the number of dumpers ("inparallel") as well.
See my explanation in:
http://wiki.zmanda.com/index.php/How_To:Fill_tapes_to_100%25
Having an option to delay the tapewriting somehow, would make
this a lot simpler, especially for those extremely large and
fast tapes currently on the market.
--
Paul Bijnens, xplanation Technology Services Tel +32 16 397.511
Technologielaan 21 bus 2, B-3001 Leuven, BELGIUM Fax +32 16 397.512
http://www.xplanation.com/ email: Paul.Bijnens%40xplanation.com">Paul.Bijnens xplanation.com
***********************************************************************
* I think I've got the hang of it now: exit, ^D, ^C, ^, ^Z, ^Q, ^^, *
* F6, quit, ZZ, :q, :q!, M-Z, ^X^C, logoff, logout, close, bye, /bye, *
* stop, end, F3, ~., ^]c, +++ ATH, disconnect, halt, abort, hangup, *
* PF4, F20, ^X^X, : , KJOB, F14-f-e, F8-e, kill -1 $$, shutdown, *
* init 0, kill -9 1, Alt-F4, Ctrl-Alt-Del, AltGr-NumLock, Stop-A, ... *
* ... "Are you sure?" ... YES ... Phew ... I'm out *
***********************************************************************
Paul.Bijne ns xplanation.com?Subject=Re%3A%20delay%20tape%20write%3F">
Reply to sender
|
amanda-hackers@yahoogroups.com?Subject= Re%3A%20delay%20tape%20write%3F">
Reply to group
|
Reply via web post
Messages in this topic
(3)
|