Hello,
On 2/21/2006 9:30 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
C) You run multiple jobs in parallel and want to keep jobs together on
tape (to allow much faster restores, usually).
How exactly is this working, especially when the spool size is
smaller then
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 21:30, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
C) You run multiple jobs in parallel and want to keep jobs together on
tape (to allow much faster restores, usually).
How exactly is this working, especially when the spool size is
Hello,
in message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
It will be slower, but perhaps not by a lot. It will likely be much faster
than if you simply ran 3 simultaneous jobs without spooling, and the total
backup time should be shorter with simultaneous spooling than running one job
after another
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Dan Langille wrote:
IMHO, spooling only really makes sense if your incoming data cannot
keep up with the tape drive.
...or if you are making multiple simultaneous backups...
AB
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
What are the requirements for such a situation? They must be A)
simultaneous and B) concurrent jobs must be set to more than one and C)
the backups must write to the same tape in the pool?
_ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _
|Y#| | | |\/| | \ |\ | | | Ryan Novosielski - User Support Spec. III
|$|
Hi,
On 2/21/2006 5:22 PM, Ryan Novosielski wrote:
What are the requirements for such a situation? They must be A)
simultaneous and B) concurrent jobs must be set to more than one and C)
the backups must write to the same tape in the pool?
My view of this topic is the following. Spooling is
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Ryan Novosielski wrote:
What are the requirements for such a situation? They must be A) simultaneous
and B) concurrent jobs must be set to more than one and C) the backups must
write to the same tape in the pool?
Yes, however it's useful if there are multiple drives too.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
C) You run multiple jobs in parallel and want to keep jobs together on
tape (to allow much faster restores, usually).
How exactly is this working, especially when the spool size is
smaller then each of the backups?
Let's say I have 3 jobs A, B
There was some discussion last week about tape write speeds, including
one message that said something like I guess if you're using an LTO-3
drive, you must have spooling turned on. Since I'm using an LTO-3
drive and had not been using a spool file, I thought I'd enable this
and see what effect
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
However, much of the reason you'd want to spool is to limit the amount
of time that the client system is affected by a backup. Unless I'm
mistaken -- which is quite possible -- the machine spools much more
quickly than it would be able to write to
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:36:45PM +0100, Ludovic Strappazon wrote:
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
And assuming you are backing up some big RAID array it might be
difficult to provide big enough spool files.
That's certainly the case in my situation. I don't have 4 TB sitting
idle that I can
11 matches
Mail list logo
