Hi Alex, thanks for your answer:
> I've found on my installation that for some clients, the bottleneck was > rather the client's CPU. Switching from `compress client' to `compress > server' gained me some percent. My servers CPU is slower than most of my clients. But at the moment i only use hardware compression on the tape. Should i change it to server or client compression? > Also, breaking up into smaller DLEs > surely helps, if only because it tends to keep the holding disk free > (you run into 100% a few times), which might allow other clients to be > started in parallel. ok, that's clear. > As it stands, you don't almost gain anything by > parallelizing DLEs: > > Run Time (hrs:min) 110:57 > > Dump Time (hrs:min) 120:52 Sorry, i didn't completely understand that. Run time can't be lower than dump time, so parallelizing will gain max. 10h ? > But even so, 716GB in 120h isn't that bad a troughput. I'm getting half > an order of magnitude better, 400GB in typically 16h, but I wouldn't bet > the house on getting below 24h. ok - at least that might run over the weekend :-) thanks for your help, Kai
