On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 11:15:16AM -0600, Frank Smith wrote: > Graeme Humphries wrote: > > stan wrote: > > > >> It's one of those "corporate political corectness" things. Management > >> recognizes the nae, and if I sugest a "non name brand", I have to a +lot_ > >> more expalining. > >> > >> > > Ahh well, I figured it'd be something like that. In any case, we're > > doing server side compression, and I can't stress enough that you'll > > need tons of CPU horsepower on the backup box if you're backing up a > > large number of systems. Usually, items from our disklist take about 1/4 > > of the time to blow out to tape that they take to actually dump to the > > holding disk, and the bottleneck is totally the server side compression. > > Luckily, fast processors are cheap these days. ;) > > > > Graeme > > Any reason you don't do client compression? Not only does it give > you more CPUs to compress with, it also cuts down on the network > bandwidth needed to move the data from the clients to the server. > Actually the system I'm upgrading _does_ do client compression. But we are upgrading the network from 10M to Gigabit. nd a lot of the clients are _really_ old machine (100MHZ SPARCS for instance), so I'm anxious to get that load off of them
Thus the change. -- U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote - Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror - New York Times 9/3/1967
