on 7/13/00 8:00 PM, retro-talk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I'm not sure it's going to happen. I've been *begging* for this for over a
> year.
> I'd LOVE to know, given a set of circumstances (such as number of clients,
> backup sessions, backup set size, processor speed, number of processors,
> etc), what kind of performance I might expect.
> It would help when preparing to purchase Retrospect for Windows servers...
> As it is, I somewhat blindly chose rather "huge" servers (and blindly chose
> the number of servers) to ensure maximum performance (minimum file matching
> times, etc).
> How do I know if I went overboard? I don't, but I spent a *bundle* of money
> just to ensure I didn't undershoot my goals.
> Brad.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffry C. Nichols [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 9:43 AM
> To: retro-talk
> Subject: Compression and speed
> With all this talk of compression, speed, different drives, etc.,
> would it be possible for someone at Dantz to set up a database that
> Retrospect users could contribute to with the purpose of documenting
> the different systems and their performance?
> At a minimum, it could include backup computer type, backup device
> used, connection type (SCSI, USB, Firewire), typical backup speeds as
> reported in the log file, and most importantly, footnotes to
> problems/solutions that people have tried or used to improve their
> own backup.

A simple database with a web interface of sorts would be easy to set up for
this purpose.

If anybody is interested, I may have some free time to work on something
over the next month and a half or so.

Seth D. Mattinen  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://roller.reno.nv.us/
PGP Key: http://seth.mattinen.org/pgp.php
There are two sides to every story. Every story has an end.

To subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:        <http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
Problems?:       [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to