I'm totally with you here. My full backup takes about 30 hours on a
weekend. Fast and straight forward, no problem. After 15-20 days of
incremental backup to the same set, it is totally impossible to collect
all the clients in one night. I have posted at length about this before,
yet no real solution - other than spending a ton of money - has been
found. I gott'a say, Dantz should realize that disk space is so cheap and
easy to add this days, that backup software and hardware should start
matching the price and efficiency.


Ben Mihailescu
System Administrator
Electrical and Computer Engineering
McGill University, Montreal, Canada

"Douglas B. McKay" wrote:

> Ben,
> I have found that Retrospect spends most of its time in my nightly
> backups processing files and catalogs, not actually backing up data.
> I have 15 clients which are backed up by Retrospect from a machine
> with 4 OnStream ADR 50  drives.  The full backups on the weekend take
> about 26 hours (~120GB).  Nightly backups take almost 12 hours
> (usually less than 5GB).
> Be careful about the half-million file limit.  If you get around
> 500,000 files, Retrospect has a problem with memory and dies.  Dantz
> knows about the issue and is working on ways to eliminate the memory
> problem (at least that's what I was told several months ago).
> Anyway, the bottom line is that what you are experiencing has been my
> experience as well (long periods "building" catalogs and things).
> It sure would be nice if my backup time could shrink and allow the
> file copying to take place at full speed, but perhaps have the catalog
> processing, etc. take place separately (perhaps on the client using
> its CPU! - my backups happen after hours).
>    ...Doug
>    Douglas B. McKay
>    Data Mgt Group
>    http://www.datamgt.com
> -----Original Message-----
> Behalf
> Of Ben Eastwood
> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 5:30 PM
> To: retro-talk
> Subject: Re: How Long does this take for you?
> More on this:
> Retrospect is still "building snapshot" and appears to be hogging
> about
> 95-99% CPU, but not stuck, really because it varies... I also notice
> that
> taskman reports memory usage of 86716K, which seems like a lot on a
> machine
> with 196 MB of RAM where the System takes up only 6364K... Any hints?
> Thanks
> --Ben
> "Ben Eastwood" <"Ben_Eastwood/HMG/Wilson_Learning/US"@wlcmail.com> on
> 12/04/2000 04:12:40 PM
> Please respond to "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc:    (bcc: Ben Eastwood/HMG/Wilson Learning/US)
> Subject:  How Long does this take for you?
> I have questions for y'all:
> When running a backup operation of a LOCAL disk (RAID 5 Array,
> actually)to
> a DLT7000 drive, I noticed that the Performance reported varied
> widely,
> from a high of 450MB/min to a low of 13 MB/min, and the "Time
> Remaining"
> would jump around pretty much based on this. Is that normal? The
> folder I
> backed up had over 36 GB in it, mostly little files. In fact there
> were
> over 300,000 files in about 10,000 folders, if that matters. Also the
> "Scanning" before the backup took a long time.
> The actual backup took about 6 hours, and then it went into "Updating
> catalog" for about 45 minutes and then on to "building snapshot,"
> where it
> is now. During these last two sections, it has said "time remaining
> 00:00:00," but it's not really done... and the progress bar is only
> about
> halfway across. Is that any real indication of how much time I have
> left?
> comments appreciated
> --ben
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives:        <http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
> For urgent issues, please contact Dantz technical support directly at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 925.253.3050.

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

For urgent issues, please contact Dantz technical support directly at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or 925.253.3050.

Reply via email to