Hi Bill, thanks for your input. What do you think about aggregates on diskpools over a long time? Is there much performance penalty due to inefficent aggregates with many gaps inside?
Regards, Stefan Holzwarth > -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Bill Colwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. November 2001 15:26 > An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Betreff: Re: Reconstruct aggregates on diskpools > > > Steffan, > > Reconstruction is only done when the input and output pools are both > sequential. If you have 4.2 you can migrate the diskpool > down to 0 to a tapepool, > then do a move data with 'reconstruct=yes' to another tape in > the pool, > then do move data back to the diskpool. If you aren't > running 4.2 this is much harder > since only reclaim will do reconstruction but the tape must > be full to be a > reclaim candidate. > > > -- > -------------------------- > Bill Colwell > C. S. Draper Lab > Cambridge, Ma. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -------------------------- > > > In <96A7493F33B7D4119EA80001FAD4B0AF01364468@SZENT008>, on 11/13/01 > at 09:25 AM, Stefan Holzwarth > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >Does anyone know, whether there is some kind of > reconstruction of aggregates > >within a diskpool? Since many of us use a diskpool for > directories with no > >tape as migration target, > >how "good" are the aggregates after a longer period? > >I'm no satisfied with the performance of the copy > dirbackuppool to tape = ~ > >1 hour > >Maybe thats a reason.. > > >Regards, Stefan Holzwarth >
