Re: [Bacula-users] Copy disk to tape is 4x slower than tar
2016-03-11 19:22:30
On 11/03/16 20:14, Simon Templar wrote:
In my case using spooling didn’t prevent
shoe-shining; it just introduced long pauses while data was
spooled. I think all this means is that I can read from my data
sources faster than my tape can write.
Unless you are using DAT, do not use mechanical drives for spooling
- they can't keep up with the tape drive unless you're using one
that's dedicated and only spooling/despooling for a single job
(LTO1-2-3, incompressible data) or can't keep up at all (As above
with any form of compressible data, or LTO4,5,6,7)
Hello Alan: I have the same perception. SSD is the only way to fly. After having tested with a PCIe NVMe
drive, I'd say that's preferred, but a _fast_ SATA2/3 or SAS2 drive
will work too (The old spool was a stripe of Intel SLC SSDs, the new
one is a DC3700 card) I never got this spooling / disk backup fetish. I mean: it keeps data interleaving to happen, but at what cost? With SSD you can have a ridiculous hight throughput, but you still need to wait backup data being copied to tapes / definitive slow disk. Unless you have a really short backup window at client size, it is useless. Spooling really comes into its own when you're running multiple
jobs. Whilst one job is despooling, others can be spooling. The
interleaving effect means all your jobs complete in a faster period
of time. Again I agree with you here. You will tend to have more optimum spooling usage in this scenario if you have enough spooling size.
Regards, --
======================================================================= Heitor Medrado de Faria - LPIC-III | ITIL-F | Bacula Systems Certified Administrator II ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transform Data into Opportunity.
Accelerate data analysis in your applications with
Intel Data Analytics Acceleration Library.
Click to learn more.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=278785111&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- [Bacula-users] Copy disk to tape is 4x slower than tar, Dan Langille
- Re: [Bacula-users] Copy disk to tape is 4x slower than tar, Heitor Faria
- Re: [Bacula-users] Copy disk to tape is 4x slower than tar, Dan Langille
- Re: [Bacula-users] Copy disk to tape is 4x slower than tar, Kern Sibbald
- Re: [Bacula-users] Copy disk to tape is 4x slower than tar, Dan Langille
- Re: [Bacula-users] Copy disk to tape is 4x slower than tar, Simon Templar
- Re: [Bacula-users] Copy disk to tape is 4x slower than tar, Dan Langille
- Re: [Bacula-users] Copy disk to tape is 4x slower than tar, Alan Brown
- Re: [Bacula-users] Copy disk to tape is 4x slower than tar,
Heitor Faria <=
- Re: [Bacula-users] Copy disk to tape is 4x slower than tar, Dan Langille
- Re: [Bacula-users] Copy disk to tape is 4x slower than tar, Alan Brown
- Re: [Bacula-users] Copy disk to tape is 4x slower than tar, Cejka Rudolf
- Re: [Bacula-users] Copy disk to tape is 4x slower than tar, Josh Fisher
- Re: [Bacula-users] Copy disk to tape is 4x slower than tar, Phil Stracchino
- Re: [Bacula-users] Copy disk to tape is 4x slower than tar, Kern Sibbald
- Re: [Bacula-users] Copy disk to tape is 4x slower than tar, Josh Fisher
- [Bacula-users] Bacula with RDX, Heitor Faria
- Re: [Bacula-users] Bacula with RDX, Heitor Faria
- Re: [Bacula-users] Copy disk to tape is 4x slower than tar, Dimitri Maziuk
|
|
|