Networker

Re: [Networker] [Fwd: Re: [Networker] Faster Cloning. By saveset or volume?]

2003-09-26 21:05:04
Subject: Re: [Networker] [Fwd: Re: [Networker] Faster Cloning. By saveset or volume?]
From: sellars <ssellars AT ADELPHIA DOT NET>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:04:44 -0400
And remember, 7.x does cloning slightly different than 6.x.

In 7.x only the savesets that start on the volume are cloned.  In 6.x all the 
savesets on a volume are
cloned.

Stephen Sellars
Ashlynn Consulting

George Sinclair wrote:

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Networker] Faster Cloning. By saveset or volume?
> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:54:40 -0400
> From: George Sinclair <george.sinclair AT noaa DOT gov>
> Reply-To: george.sinclair AT noaa DOT gov
> To: "Novello, Guy" <GNovello AT phcs DOT com>
> References: <8E621BA187DA3B4499DE50AEAB85421B01E9833F AT walexc01.phcs DOT 
> com>
>
> Davina was correct. There really is no such thing as cloning a volume
> because NetWorker will insist on wanting to clone all the savesets even
> if they carry over from or onto other volumes. If it was "true" that you
> could "truly" clone a volume then the unfortunate side effect would be
> that you'd end up with some incomplete savesets, most likely the first
> and last ones written to the tape that you were cloning.
>
> The magic question now is whether or not the two commands to clone the
> savesets on the tape:
>
> nsrclone -s server -b pool volname
> nsrclone -s server -b pool -S -f file
>
> are equivalent in speed. I think you will find that they are because
> NetWorker will optimize the order as Davina pointed out, but personally,
> if I want to clone all the savesets on a tape, I find it easier to just
> clone using the volname rather than creating a list of the ssids and
> using the -S -f file name technique.
>
> George
>
> "Novello, Guy" wrote:
> >
> > George,
> >
> > Thanks making my thoughts clear. Currently, I clone using  nsrclone -s 
> > server -b pool -S -f file
> > My question was, would it be faster to clone with  nsrclone -s server -b 
> > pool volname
> >
> > I think I will just try it and see.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Guy
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: George Sinclair [mailto:George.Sinclair AT noaa DOT gov]
> > Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 2:39 PM
> > To: Legato NetWorker discussion; Novello, Guy
> > Subject: Re: [Networker] Faster Cloning. By saveset or volume?
> >
> > I seem to recall that this got into this issue of de-multiplexing versus
> > maintaining the multi-plexing. Then again, that may be have been the
> > difference between running the nsrclone command with a list of saveset
> > ids (on the command line with -S or via an input file as -S -f file)
> > versus iterating over the list one at a time. I think if you iterate it,
> > the savesets would have to be un-multiplexed, but if you don't iterate
> > it one at a time then the multi-plexing is preserved. If that's true,
> > then it seems to me that cloning the entire volume would have to be
> > faster because it would not have to de-multiplex anything, but if you
> > did it by saveset, one at a time, then it would, unless you ran it using
> > an input file with all the savesets in there.
> >
> > So, my question would be: is running nsrclone with an input file that
> > contains all the savesets tantamount to cloning the whole volume in
> > terms of over all time. In other words, which of the following is
> > faster:
> >
> > nsrclone -s server -b pool volname
> > nsrclone -s server -b pool -S -f file
> >
> > where file contains all the saveset ids on the volume.
> >
> > I mean, both operations should amount to the same thing, but I'm
> > thinking that cloning the volume using the first command is easier and
> > could not be slower than the second.
> >
> > George
> >
> > "Novello, Guy" wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Everyone,
> > >
> > > I seem to remember a discussion over which was the faster way to clone. I 
> > > am currently
> > > using the ssid, but I am thinking it may be faster cloning the volumes.
> > >
> > > Has anyone tested this?
> > >
> > > Thanks in Advance!
> > >
> > > Guy
> > >
> > > --
> > > Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
> > > to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
> > > http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
> > > also view and post messages to the list.
> > > =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
>
> --
> Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
> to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
> http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
> also view and post messages to the list.
> =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=

--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>