Networker

Re: [Networker] multiple saves without using savegrp

2003-12-04 11:17:28
Subject: Re: [Networker] multiple saves without using savegrp
From: Darren Dunham <ddunham AT TAOS DOT COM>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:17:17 -0800
> Hello,
>
> I would like to launch a special backup for a server (not the usual
> daily/weekly backups) , by specifying the list of the FS/folders to be
> saved ... but i don't want to create any new group.
>
> However the "savegrp" command, which can launch and manage multiple "save"
> on the client, doesn't accept a list of FS in the optional parameters !
> For a long time, i have been using the "save" command with a list of FS ,
> but it is a sequential backup (parallelism = 1) and only 1 CPU out of 4 is
> used and the backup is going very slow : about 1 or 2 MB/s.

> Which command can I use to launch multiple saves, without having to create
> any groups ?? (because the list of FS is very special)
> Thanks a lots ... and sorry for the english ;-)

You could break your list of files up into a few separate lists, then
feed each one to a separate 'save' process.

I'm not sure about your speed limitations.  Even one 'save' can generate
significant traffic.  You might want to try to figure out where your
bottleneck is (disk, network, CPU, something else...).  You might not go
any faster with multiple saves.


--
Darren Dunham                                           ddunham AT taos DOT com
Unix System Administrator                    Taos - The SysAdmin Company
Got some Dr Pepper?                           San Francisco, CA bay area
         < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >

--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>