Hi Alex,

thanks for your answer:

> I've found on my installation that for some clients, the bottleneck was
> rather the client's CPU.  Switching from `compress client' to `compress
> server' gained me some percent.

My servers CPU is slower than most of my clients. But at the moment i only use 
hardware compression on the tape. Should i change it to server or client 
compression? 

>  Also, breaking up into smaller DLEs
> surely helps, if only because it tends to keep the holding disk free
> (you run into 100% a few times), which might allow other clients to be
> started in parallel.

ok, that's clear.

> As it stands, you don't almost gain anything by
> parallelizing DLEs:
> > Run Time (hrs:min)        110:57
> > Dump Time (hrs:min)       120:52

Sorry, i didn't completely understand that. Run time can't be lower than dump 
time, so parallelizing will gain max. 10h ?

> But even so, 716GB in 120h isn't that bad a troughput.  I'm getting half
> an order of magnitude better, 400GB in typically 16h, but I wouldn't bet
> the house on getting below 24h.

ok - at least that might run over the weekend :-)
thanks for your help,
Kai