Re: A quick question about stgpool.
2005-09-12 11:47:45
==> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:39:32 -0400, "Mueller, Ken" <KMueller AT MCARTA DOT
COM> said:
> You could always backup the client (X) under a second nodename (X_ACTIVE):
> Backup node X with your normal management classes/retention. Backup node
> X_ACTIVE with a management class set to only keep the active copy on your
> special disk storage pool - anything inactive will be expired out.
> Obviously, that means having the client backup twice, so that might not be
> practicle in your environment. Assuming that is tolerable, does anyone see
> a 'fatal flaw' in that idea?
Dang. "only" twice the effort is quite a bit better than the
re-scrunge-the-aggregates method. Heh, Never forget you could just use a
bigger hammer.
You'd want to make sure the _ACTIVE stgpools are on FILE devclasses rather
than DISK, so they can be reclaimed occasionally. That would be a good
stgpool to have a very very high reclaim threshold; if you're wasting 20% of
your disk on administratively empty space, that would be well worth copying
files around.
- Allen S. Rout
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: A quick question about stgpool., (continued)
- Re: A quick question about stgpool., Mark D. Rodriguez
- Re: A quick question about stgpool., Pugliese, Edward
- Re: A quick question about stgpool., Martinez, Matt
- Re: A quick question about stgpool., Pugliese, Edward
- Re: A quick question about stgpool., Martinez, Matt
- Re: A quick question about stgpool., Stapleton, Mark
- Re: A quick question about stgpool., Mueller, Ken
- Re: A quick question about stgpool.,
Allen S. Rout <=
- Re: A quick question about stgpool., Henrik Wahlstedt
|
|
|