On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 11:15:16AM -0600, Frank Smith wrote:
> Graeme Humphries wrote:
> > stan wrote:
> > 
> >> It's one of those "corporate political corectness" things. Management
> >> recognizes the nae, and if I sugest a "non name brand", I have to a +lot_
> >> more expalining.
> >>  
> >>
> > Ahh well, I figured it'd be something like that. In any case, we're 
> > doing server side compression, and I can't stress enough that you'll 
> > need tons of CPU horsepower on the backup box if you're backing up a 
> > large number of systems. Usually, items from our disklist take about 1/4 
> > of the time to blow out to tape that they take to actually dump to the 
> > holding disk, and the bottleneck is totally the server side compression. 
> > Luckily, fast processors are cheap these days. ;)
> > 
> > Graeme
> 
> Any reason you don't do client compression?  Not only does it give
> you more CPUs to compress with, it also cuts down on the network
> bandwidth needed to move the data from the clients to the server.
> 
Actually the system I'm upgrading _does_ do client compression. But we are
upgrading the network from 10M to Gigabit. nd a lot of the clients are
_really_ old machine (100MHZ SPARCS for instance), so I'm anxious to get
that load off of them

Thus the change.

-- 
U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote - Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong 
Terror 
- New York Times 9/3/1967