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@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users