It's not possible to create a general rule for all environments.  It
depends on the type of restores you do and the environment (resources,
bottlenecks, etc).  Actually, it's possible that restores may be
faster WITH multiplexing.  The only way to really know is to test in
your environment.


On a related topic, we all know that streaming type drives (e.g. DLT)
need to be "fed" data fast enough, or they'll shoe-shine resulting in
perf loss, excessive drive/tape wear, etc.  But, does anyone know if
this is also the case when READING from them?

Thanks,
L

Jeff Kennedy writes:
> Has anyone determined what the practical time differences are in a
> restore from a multiplexed backup vs a non-multiplexed?  I would be
> interested in both single file restore as well as full filesystem from
> each.
> 
> I ask because up till now my DR backups (offsite) have all been
> non-multiplexed.  But given the increase in data size and the backup
> window not changing I need to do something to speed up the process.  But
> I don't want to speed it up at the cost of recovery.  If restoring from
> a multiplexed backup is, say, 10% slower this would be acceptable.  But
> if it's 100% slower then that would not be.  Anything in between is TBD
> whether it's acceptable or not.
> 
> Thanks for any input.
> -- 
> =====================
> Jeff Kennedy
> Unix Administrator
> AMCC
> jlkennedy AT amcc DOT com
> _______________________________________________
> Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

-- 
Larry Kingery 
  If one synchronized swimmer drowns, do the rest have to drown too?