Andrea Conti wrote:
> 2) I am not sure about what happens if the maximum spool size is reached
> in this case. With no concurrency, the running job is paused while
> spooled data is flushed and then spooling resumes; with concurrency, I
> do not know whether this pause-flush-restart cycle is done for a single
> job (thus preserving the sequential writing) or for all spooled jobs
> (reverting to the "interleaved" behavior). Maybe someone can shed some
> light on this point?

I'm pretty sure you get the interleaved behaviour, because I used to do
exactly this.

The problem I did find is that if you're interleaving two backups on
tape without spooling, eg:

Server A: Slow disk, 50GB
Server B: Fast disk, 200GB

... you wind up slowing down the backup for server B quite dramatically
because it spends a lot of time waiting for the rather slow backup of
server A.  You may actually see a shorter backup window by selectively
disabling concurrency on the jobs.

-- 
James Cort

IT Manager
U4EA Technologies Ltd.

-- 
U4EA Technologies
http://www.u4eatech.com


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users