On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 10:29:41 -5, it was written: >My take is that a backup set creation is the equivalent of a full >restore. If the backup set can be created in 3 hours, then a full >server restore is possible in 3 hours - if you can get the data to >the server (network throughput) and the netware server can accept the >data (netware server write throughput). > >Is this sound reasoning?
No. >Thoughts? Use some logic. A restore reads a file off of a tape and sends it along the SCSI/fiber connection to the TSM server, which in turn pipes it through the I/O bus (getting it from SCSI to ethernet/token ring), sends it out a network connection, through an indeterminate number of pieces of network hardware, gets it to its intended target. The target box then sends the file through *its* I/O bus to IDE/SCSI, and finally onto disk. A backupset take a file that is stored on tape, sends it through a SCSI connection to a SCSI adapter, goes through the I/O bus to another SCSI adapter on the same bus, sends it back out through another SCSI connection to a tape drive, which writes the file. Do the math on the distance, the number of hops through separate machines, and the translations. There's *lots* more overhead on a restore; I didn't even discuss the disk operations necessary to recreate volumes and directories. -- Mark Stapleton ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
