skipunk wrote:
> Any suggestions would be appreciated.

The other suggestions have suggested running the standard tests,

You didn't say anything about hardware and I found that to be very 
important when I changed from DAT to DLT tapes, which initially ran just 
as glacial as the DAT.

The first thing I did was set up a raid 5 array as the spool area. 
Perhaps the major aspect was this went from 10Mb/s hardware to 40Mb/s 
capable hardware.

I also moved the tape drive off to separate scsi bus, again 40mbs/s capable.

The slow part was the spooling and after checking networking and 
upgrading from 10Mb/s to 100Mb/s (negligible difference), it was traced 
back to the individual slow file servers (SO).

So I then started to run parallel jobs and divided the spool area 
equally. Note a large spool file is not neccessarily the best. Smaller 
spool files might result in faster job times as it minimises the chances 
of one job interferring with the other when waiting for the tape drive.

Trade off is longer recovery times as more tape has to be run through 
for all the chunks.

Last was to carefully arrange the job starts. I queue the two big jobs 
first and leave the third job spot to the other jumble of shorter jobs, 
which start a few minutes later.

Just 2c for consideration.


-- 
Terry Collins {:-)}}}}}
Bicycles, Appropriate Technology, Natural Environment, Welding

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

_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users