Hi Bill, thanks for your input. 

What do you think about aggregates on diskpools over a long time? 
Is there much performance penalty due to inefficent aggregates with many
gaps inside?

Regards, Stefan Holzwarth


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Bill Colwell [mailto:bcolwell AT DRAPER DOT COM]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. November 2001 15:26
> An: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Betreff: Re: Reconstruct aggregates on diskpools
> 
> 
> Steffan,
> 
> Reconstruction is only done when the input and output pools are both
> sequential.  If you have 4.2 you can migrate the diskpool 
> down to 0 to a tapepool,
> then do a move data with 'reconstruct=yes' to another tape in 
> the pool,
> then do move data back to the diskpool.  If you aren't 
> running 4.2 this is much harder
> since only reclaim will do reconstruction but the tape must 
> be full to be a
> reclaim candidate.
> 
> 
> --
> --------------------------
> Bill Colwell
> C. S. Draper Lab
> Cambridge, Ma.
> bcolwell AT draper DOT com
> --------------------------
> 
> 
> In <96A7493F33B7D4119EA80001FAD4B0AF01364468@SZENT008>, on 11/13/01
>    at 09:25 AM, Stefan Holzwarth 
> <stefan.holzwarth AT ZENTRALE.ADAC DOT DE> said:
> 
> >Does anyone know, whether there is some kind of 
> reconstruction of aggregates
> >within a diskpool? Since many of us use a diskpool for 
> directories with no
> >tape as migration target,
> >how "good" are the aggregates after a longer period?
> >I'm no satisfied with the performance of the copy 
> dirbackuppool to tape = ~
> >1 hour
> >Maybe thats a reason..
> 
> >Regards, Stefan Holzwarth
>