On 3/22/2011 11:02 AM, Tod Detre wrote:
>> Agreed - I've always thought it would be nice if backuppc were aware of
>> hosts grouped on a network route as well and could separately limit the
>> concurrency within the those groups.   Maybe it could be generalized
>> with a concept of how much impact a run will have on total concurrency
>> (to limit the overall number in a way that might differ depending on the
>> targets) and also within its group to cover bandwidth and other shared
>> resource (like VMs) issues.
>
> It would also be nice if BackupPC could try to avoid doing full
> backups on all of the machines in a group on the same night. Full
> backups take a lot more resources than the incrementals.

That mostly happens by itself if you have the same schedule and get 
started with the fulls on different nights.  Or just force one ahead of 
time if you need to adjust the skew.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet the
growing manageability and security demands of your customers. Businesses
are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology - will your software 
be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker 
today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmar
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/