Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Disk\-to\-Disk\s+Backup\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Disk\-to\-Disk\s+Backup\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. Disk-to-Disk Backup (score: 1): Author: Christoph Pilgram <Christoph.Pilgram AT BC.BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM DOT COM>; Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 15:43:07 +0200; Hi all, Because we have problems to hold our service level agreements with the customers for restoring big file-servers (10 Mio files, 1TB disk-space in one filesystem), we are thinking about storing; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-05/msg00295.html (11,464 bytes)
2. Re: Disk-to-Disk Backup (score: 1): Author: Jon Evans <Jon.Evans AT HALLIBURTON DOT COM>; Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 15:49:00 +0100; I have recently tested a DD460 for exactly the same reason. The results showed that compression was good (upto 20x) but throughput was not so good. The more clients you add, the slower each backup st; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-05/msg00301.html (12,819 bytes)
3. Re: Disk-to-Disk Backup (score: 1): Author: Orville Lantto <orville.lantto AT GLASSHOUSE DOT COM>; Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 11:20:23 -0400; A client of mine has a similar problem. The solution implemented there was a NAS box with snapshots and remote mirroring. Snapshots provide nice short backups and restores without taking a large amou; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-05/msg00304.html (13,525 bytes)
4. Re: Disk-to-Disk Backup (score: 1): Author: Paul Zarnowski <psz1 AT CORNELL DOT EDU>; Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 11:27:05 -0400; I believe that the restore performance for small files is impacted by how spread out they are on tape (the same tape, not different tapes). If all of the files you are restoring are contiguous, I bel; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-05/msg00305.html (14,796 bytes)
5. Re: Disk-to-Disk Backup (score: 1): Author: Stef Coene <stef.coene AT DOCUM DOT ORG>; Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 21:53:56 +0200; We have lots of small customer with storage pools around 5TB. A LTO library with 2 tape drives can handle the backup, but the problem is restores. Restoring a file or a oracle db is ok. But for each; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-05/msg00312.html (12,858 bytes)
6. Re: Disk-to-Disk Backup (score: 1): Author: Richard Sims <rbs AT BU DOT EDU>; Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 17:31:50 -0400; Note that major topics such as this one have been exhaustively discussed in the past: the accumulated wisdom is preserved in the List archives. While you might think of not doing Reclamation as an ad; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-05/msg00315.html (11,559 bytes)
7. Re: Disk-to-Disk Backup (score: 1): Author: Kelly Lipp <lipp AT STORSERVER DOT COM>; Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 01:12:29 -0600; Before spending a ton of time optimizing this realize that the impediment to fast restore is file create time on the file server. My testing has shown that we can create between 50K and 75K files per; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-05/msg00319.html (12,099 bytes)
8. Re: Disk-to-Disk Backup (score: 1): Author: "Wallace.Dwight" <Wallace.Dwight AT MCCG DOT ORG>; Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 08:33:01 -0400; Another interesting thought. We had thought about this one. Before spending a ton of time optimizing this realize that the impediment to fast restore is file create time on the file server. My testin; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-05/msg00325.html (12,488 bytes)
9. Re: Disk-to-Disk Backup (score: 1): Author: "Prather, Wanda" <Wanda.Prather AT JHUAPL DOT EDU>; Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 12:05:47 -0400; Yup, I"ve seen the same type of bottleneck, esp. on Windows file servers Alternatives: Check into creating image backups: Restoring an image will take a lot less time than restoring 10 million files; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2006-05/msg00333.html (14,255 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]