--jq0ap7NbKX2Kqbes
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Charles Ballowe <cballowe AT gmail DOT com> [2004-12-19 15:36]:
> I know in 3.4 storage unit assignment was alphabetical. One storage
> unit was used until its drives were full then the next was selected.
> Is this still the same in NBU 4.5 or 5.1? If so... can I do something
> like -- suppose 3 media servers with 8 SSO drives named master,
> media1, media2 - now suppose media2 has the best I/O performance so
> i'd like it to be prefered, but would still like to balance I/O
> between the 3 with master as the least used - can i create storage
> units with names like:
> 1-media2
> 2-media1
> 3-media2
> 4-media1
> 5-master
>=20
> and assign 2 drives to each storage unit, put the units in a storage
> unit group, assign the group to backups and have the backups fairly
> balanced between the servers? any downsides to something like this?
> Thoughts?

In 4.5 and above, I would think that Storage Unit Groups would be the
appropriate way to do this. The order of precedence in the STUG is based
on which one is defined first in the group, not alphabetical, so list
the fastest one first.

--=20
David Rock
david AT graniteweb DOT com

--jq0ap7NbKX2Kqbes
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBxjKEMrO4/Yb/xwYRAqMXAJ9UToY02xRNGrcj9m5zaDHwyez53ACgk7ns
qedq0EuhsDNFX7+tUf8p9HM=
=K7Ix
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--jq0ap7NbKX2Kqbes--