On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 9:37 AM, James Cort <james.cort AT u4eatech DOT com> 
wrote:
> 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.
>

How about setting a maximum spool size of 5GB or so? I do that and it
works great for me with my 2 drive lto2 changer.

John

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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