At 15:15 04.01.01 -0800, Seth D. Mattinen wrote:
>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.
Yes, please! That is the one thing that puts Amanda in front of Retrospect
(for the platforms it supports ;).
>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.
On our R3 server (2x PPro 200, 768 MB RAM, RAID 1+5, DLT on separate
controller), Retrospect is shoeshining the DLT when backing up the D drive
with lots of little binaries and config files; I get ~20MB/min. A holding
disk would be a real gain there.
>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?
Great idea. Though I am not sure they see the problem at Dantz: I had a
Dantz representative tell me that RS would have no problem with keeping a
DLT streaming over 10BaseT...
Hauke Fath Tangro Software Components GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ruf +49-6221-13336-0, Fax -21
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For urgent issues, please contact Dantz technical support directly at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or 925.253.3050.