Networker

Re: [Networker] Buffering

2003-06-25 03:38:56
Subject: Re: [Networker] Buffering
From: "Wood, R A (Bob)" <WoodR AT CHEVRONTEXACO DOT COM>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 08:38:26 +0100
Jack,
        Simple way to prove if it is the other server that is having an
effect on data written to tape. Split it up in some way. 
Set up another pool and have the other server backup to that (this way
you'll only have the one stream from the large machine going to the one
tape, that is if it just one stream - how many savesets make up the
1TB?) 
Do you have more than one network card in the Networker server? There
could be scope for doing something there.

Finally, splitting up into savesets needn't be an admin nightmare, just
document it well and, when you come to do any modifications in 6 months
time, you won't have to remember everything you've done.

Regards
Bob

        

-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Lyons [mailto:jack.lyons AT MARTINAGENCY DOT COM] 
Sent: 23 June 2003 17:07
To: NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: [Networker] Buffering


Can anyone explain how Legato buffers incoming streams - if it does at
all.

I have 1 server that has a 1 TB data (don't say move to SAN, that is
already in the process) with a gigabit Ethernet link directly to the
Legato server. I have performed a full backup in about 12 hours when it
was the only thing running, but during normal backups it takes a lot
longer.  For instance this morning, I see it running at 3 MB/s versus
the rated 12-15MB/s that the tape drives are capable.  There is another
server that is being backed up at the same time (the second server is 5
years old and only 100BaseT)  I am thinking that the tape maybe running
at 3MB/s because of the second stream and I was wondering if there was a
way to have the server buffer the stream so that it wouldn't slow down
the other backup. - if this is a stupid question, please be gentle with
the flames.

Alternately, should I dedicate 1 or 2 tape drives to just backing up the
big server.  I am looking at breaking up the 3 400GB volumes into
different savesets to speed it up, but that is seeming to be a lot of
work to maintain.

Jack


This email and its contents may be confidential.  If it is and you are
not the intended recipient, please do not disclose or use the
information within this email or its attachments.  If you have received
this email in error, please delete it immediately.  Thank you.

--
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>