On 20 Feb 2006 at 16:51, John Kodis wrote: > To my surprise, it took over twice as long to perform a full backup > when spooling was enabled. The numbers for two full backups made two > weeks apart are: > > Without spooling: 3.8 TB in 24:57 at 44.8 MB/s > With spool file: 3.9 TB in 55:43 at 20.4 MB/s > > Both jobs were on the same hardware, with everything -- the client, > director, storage server, console, and database -- on the same > machine, and with no other backup jobs running. The only significant > difference was the addition of a 60 GB spool file on the fastest RAID > array on the system just prior to the second run.
IMHO, spooling only really makes sense if your incoming data cannot keep up with the tape drive. That is, your FD cannot feed your SD faster than than the SD can feed the tape drive. In your case, everything is on the same machine. What you're doing with spooling is taking a copy of everything you're going to back up and putting it some place else on your disk. -- Dan Langille : Software Developer looking for work my resume: http://www.freebsddiary.org/dan_langille.php ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
