On Thursday 02 February 2006 10:01, Jon LaBadie wrote: >Kind of a "best practice" or "common usage" query. > >For those of you using vtapes, how have you chosen >to specify the size of a single vtape? > >A while ago, perhaps 1-2 yrs when vtapes were starting >to be used more regularly, the comments seemed to be >"divide the available space by the number of vtapes". >This ensured that the file system would never run out >of space but meant that some available space is "wasted". > >In contrast, when I 'played' with vtapes a year or more >earlier, I just specified a huge size, knowing it would >"never" be exceeded. However a possibility was that I >would run the file system out of space if many vtapes >were pretty full. > >Gene H., as I under stand it, uses a third variation. >He wants X number of vtapes and wants them pretty full. >To achieve this he adjusts the dumpcycle & runspercycle >parameters. > >How are current users sizing their vtapes and what has >been their experience in disk usage? > > (: can you tell I'm thinking about using vtapes :)
Yup. My method is of course not the only way to skin this particular cat, there not being the possibility of offsite storage, but so far its worked well for me. FWIW I also have lowered the var that controls how many days a given incremental level is used to 1, but at the end of the day I believe it had a minimal effect while using tar 1.15-1. How STar would handle that I haven't investigated. Has anyone? -- Cheers, Gene People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word 'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
