A 20:09 22/01/2001 -0500, vous avez écrit :
>Many thanks to James & Richard for your input.  You got me thinking of
>the problem from another angle and here's what I came up with....
...
>To my surprise, the backups straight to DLT were insignificantly
>slower than our backups to disk -- even during the middle of the day.

Hmmm interesting

can you tell me a bit more about your hardware ?

i'm facing a performance problem with a F50 with 2 ibm's 3590 (14 MB/sec,
10 GB/tape) and an ATM 155 Mbps network connexion (thus 14 MB/sec too).
some guys want me to have backups processed in two steps (client -> disk
pool via network, then, when finished, internal disk to tape migration on
server), what needs considerable amount of disk space on the server, while
i believe concurrent backup and migration is as fast (that is, using the
disk pool as a buffer), and even that a backup directly to tape would not
take that longer...

so i'm interested in some details

tia,
                        - * - * - * - * - * - * -
Mes idees n'engagent que moi (vieux proverbe du Net)

Thierry ITTY
eMail : Thierry.Itty AT Besancon DOT org               FRANCE