> > I am also interested in this. > > I have pretty big full backup (3,2TB) for which I need around 12 LTO-2 tapes > (with hw compression on). I use spooling with max size of 215GB, and > typically spooling (of max size) lasts 2h50min, while despooling lasts > 2h40min. Is this normal that spooling lasts longer than actual writing to > the tapes? > > I would drop the spooling part, but I'm worried about tape shoe-shining. > (If only bacula can do despooling and start spooling the next chunk of the > same job at the same time.) > > Sandi
Spooling with concurrency may help quite a bit. W/o concurrency, spooling will slow things down because LTO-2 tape drives are generally faster than non-raided hard drives. So not only is writing to your spool drive slower than writing initially to tape, it's read is also slowing the backup down. If you're worried about shoe shining you probably don't have to worry much about that with LTO-2 (and newer) drives. So long as the data stream isn't extremely jerky (i.e. speeding up and slowing down a lot) the drive should regulate the speed of the tape movement so as to properly keep pace with the data stream. Some LTO-1 drives had this but not all. I believe all LTO-2 ones do though. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
