Alan Brown wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Brian Debelius wrote:
> 
>> John Drescher wrote:
>>> In linux, I find this to be completely wrong. I have 15TB of software
>>> raid 6 and the most load that it puts on the cpu is around 7% and
>>> these are raid arrays that net over 200MB/s writes on single core
>>> systems that are 3 or so years old.
> 
>> So what do you think a reasonable cpu for bacula would be?
> 
> I'm running spooling on a 4 drive software raid0 quite happily on a 4Gb
> 3GHz P4D machine. The limiting factors are disk head seek time(*) when
> running concurrent backups to 2 LTO2 drives and available SATA ports.
> Because of that I'm considering dropping in solid state disks.

I still have got to see a reasonable priced SSD' disk that can deliver 
around 100MB/s both ways at the same time.

http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-64gb-ssd-performance-benchmarks-278717/

I have beefed up my director with sufficient amount of memory and 
mounted it as a "ramdisk" for spooling. That doesn't impose any 
limitations on the 2 LTO3 drives attached.

And spooling doesnt need any form for persistence, so its fine that its 
gone after reboot.

-- 
Jesper

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The future of the web can't happen without you.  Join us at MIX09 to help
pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users