Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[ADSM\-L\]\s+incremental\s+backup\s+of\s+many\s+millions\s+of\s+very\s+small\s+files\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[ADSM\-L\]\s+incremental\s+backup\s+of\s+many\s+millions\s+of\s+very\s+small\s+files\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [ADSM-L] incremental backup of many millions of very small files (score: 1): Author: Mehdi Salehi <ezzobad AT GOOGLEMAIL DOT COM>; Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:05:09 +1000; Hi, Can TSM Fastback be a good solution to backup an NTFS filesystem (about 500GB) with tens of millions of files? The daily increment of this filesystem is about 10-15 GB. Currently we use full dail; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-06/msg00348.html (12,093 bytes)
2. Re: [ADSM-L] incremental backup of many millions of very small files (score: 1): Author: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU <zforray AT VCU DOT EDU>; Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:19:48 -0400; Been there - done that - went through a complete restore that took days (could not do NQR for some of it). Why is journaling "not feasible"? I have a Windows box with 97M total files (including offsi; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-06/msg00350.html (12,878 bytes)
3. Re: [ADSM-L] incremental backup of many millions of very small files (score: 1): Author: Lindsay Morris <lindsay AT TSMWORKS DOT COM>; Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:15:41 -0400; You say "Been there, done that". You mean with Fastback, not TSM? When you talk about NQR, No Query Restore, I don't think you're talking about Fastback anymore. -- Lindsay Morris CEO, TSMworks Tel.; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-06/msg00351.html (13,714 bytes)
4. Re: [ADSM-L] incremental backup of many millions of very small files (score: 1): Author: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU <zforray AT VCU DOT EDU>; Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:13:52 -0400; Sorry for the lack of clarification. I was talking about regular TSM and nodes with millions of objects. Across my 5-servers, I have 10-nodes with From: Lindsay Morris <lindsay AT TSMWORKS DOT COM> T; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-06/msg00358.html (14,253 bytes)
5. Re: [ADSM-L] incremental backup of many millions of very small files (score: 1): Author: Leandro Mazur <leandromazur AT GMAIL DOT COM>; Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:12:45 -0300; Does anybody had experienced this same situation in Linux ? We have 1 server with around 50 M files.... On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU <zforray AT vcu DOT -- __________________; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-06/msg00359.html (15,219 bytes)
6. Re: [ADSM-L] incremental backup of many millions of very small files (score: 1): Author: Mehdi Salehi <ezzobad AT GOOGLEMAIL DOT COM>; Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 19:41:52 +1000; Zoltan, Actually the node is a Win 2008 32-bit. I said journaling is not feasible because b/a client incremental backup is not feasible as well. When I start backup, nothing happens even after two ho; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-06/msg00372.html (12,530 bytes)
7. Re: [ADSM-L] incremental backup of many millions of very small files (score: 1): Author: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU <zforray AT VCU DOT EDU>; Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:54:07 -0400; Same here. The files are 4K average in size (geological mapping data - lots of png files). Have you tried MEMORYEFFICIENT? Windows 2003 32-bit Yes, the backup start takes many hours due to getting th; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-06/msg00373.html (13,305 bytes)
8. Re: [ADSM-L] incremental backup of many millions of very small files (score: 1): Author: Mehdi Salehi <ezzobad AT GOOGLEMAIL DOT COM>; Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:42:11 +1000; Thanks Zoltan, Assuming that "many hours" is acceptable for backing up a full filesystem, I am still worried about performance in terms of restore. I don't have any idea of restore performance when u; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2010-06/msg00374.html (12,596 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]