> Indeed. However even for those hosts that do have 100Mb somewhere > between them and the tape drive, one might expect better than 3.5MB/s - > as I said, with some tweaking. > > Another speed factor we've noticed (which has possibly been discussed ad > nauseum elsewhere on this list) is that our full backup on one machine > runs at some 14MB/s, then its incrementals all run in the 40s. We are > quite sure that this is due to it backing up a large file (a VMWare > instance) in every incremental, compared with all of the little files in > the full. > Sorry, about questioning this so much. I recently got into an argument where I work (hospital environment) where the person incharge of network planning said that they have done benchmarks and gigabit does not inprove performance by much so it did not warrant the cost. They obviously have never had to backup 16TB of data that I have to deal with, but I admit the cost they were talking about > $1000 per network port was just plain nuts to me.
John ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
