Networker

Re: [Networker] mminfo size reporting when using compresasm?

2010-02-17 09:06:28
Subject: Re: [Networker] mminfo size reporting when using compresasm?
From: David Gold-news <dave2 AT CAMBRIDGECOMPUTER DOT COM>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:03:49 -0500
Hi,

Thanks for your thoughts. I think what threw me off is that the media database does include both server-side and client-side info--ssinsert versus savetime as a primary example--and I assumed that the man page would have noted "written to media".

Your logic makes sense--this probably will have to be chalked up to unclear documentation. I have a ticket open, and will try to get at least a documentation bug opened for this.

I've seen a lot of sites use backup reports for sizing--so this is probably something that has hit a lot of sites without them realizing it.

Guess I'll go do the legwork of checking each system...

Thanks,

Dave

Date:    Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:04:31 +0000
From:    A Darren Dunham <ddunham AT TAOS DOT COM>
Subject: Re: mminfo size reporting when using compresasm?

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:08:42AM -0500, David Gold-news wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been doing some sizing analysis, and have noticed that mminfo
> reports show the amount written to a device (AFTD, in this case),
> rather than the amount of source data.
>
> So when using compressasm, my 80GB full backups is reported as 20GB
> via mminfo.

Yup.  That's what the server sees.

> What seems odd is that the description of totalsize from the man
> page is "The total save set size," which implies source data, not
> compressed data.

I'd say that "save set" is an overloaded term and may mean different
things in different contexts, and adding "size" on the end doesn't make
it much clearer.

However, mminfo is reporting on things in a server-centric way.  The
size represents the amount of data read from the client and written to a
device (assuming no server-side compression).  Anything the client does
(compression, encryption, corruption, etc.) is hidden.

> Does anyone know if that is the expected output, and if so, anyone
> have any ideas about workarounds?

You'd have to have some way of asking the client how big the source is.
I don't know any way to query the Networker client and get that as a
definitive quantity for that particular session (rather than as an
(-E)stimate).  If you didn't have to worry about excludes and such, I
would be tempted to gather that data outside of Networker (ssh/df or
similar).


===================================
David Gold
Sr. Technical Consultant
Cambridge Computer Services, Inc.
Artists in Data Storage
Tel: 781-250-3000
Tel (Direct): 781-250-3260
Fax: 781-250-3360
dave AT cambridgecomputer DOT com
www.cambridgecomputer.com

===================================
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Any ideas, suggestion or comments are mine alone, and are not of my company*
To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and type 
"signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to networker-request 
AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this list. You can access the 
archives at http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER