Since it seems we're on the subject of feature requests, speeds of backups
over network to tape and so on, here's what I'd like to see added to
Retrospect. I'll be talking about tapes because that's what I use, but I'm
sure this would apply to any sort of backup set.

Add an option that does backups to a holding drive instead of directly to
tape. When the holding drive is full or the backup of the client is complete
(whichever comes first), transfer the holding drive backup set to a tape
backup set. After all is done and on tape, clear the holding drive.

This would be kind of like doing a set transfer from a file backup set to a
tape backup set, but in an automated way. This would accomplish a few things
from my perspective.

1) Parallel backups of multiple clients. I don't see how one could do
parallel backups to tape efficiently, but to a holding disk is a different
story. Once it's done the holding disk gets transferred to tape and cleared
off for the next round of backups.

2) Increase speed of backups. Local hard drive to local tape drive is much
faster than remote client direct to tape. The tape drive can then run at its
maximum speed if everything is done locally. Also allows for more efficient
use of tape.

3) If Retrospect needs more tapes, backups can still proceed to the holding
drive rather than be halted completely until more tapes are available.

So, what does everyone think? Good idea or not?

Seth D. Mattinen  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Key:
Tomorrow holds such better days. Days when I can still feel alive.

To subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:        <>
Search:  <>

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

Reply via email to