On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 4:48 AM, dobbin wrote:
>
>>
>> Quote:
>> All the machine backups go into one pool. It is counterproductive to use
>> individual pools for machines as that means tapes aren't filled
>> regularly and you're having to either keep lots in the changer or have
>> to change tapes
>
> Quote:
> All the machine backups go into one pool. It is counterproductive to use
> individual pools for machines as that means tapes aren't filled
> regularly and you're having to either keep lots in the changer or have
> to change tapes constantly.
>
>
> yes but, as I said in my first
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:48 AM, dobbin wrote:
>
>> All the machine backups go into one pool. It is counterproductive to use
>> individual pools for machines as that means tapes aren't filled
>> regularly and you're having to either keep lots in the changer or have
>> to change tapes constantly.
>
On 9/29/2010 4:48 AM, dobbin wrote:
>
>> All the machine backups go into one pool. It is counterproductive to use
>> individual pools for machines as that means tapes aren't filled
>> regularly and you're having to either keep lots in the changer or have
>> to change tapes constantly.
>
>
> yes but
> All the machine backups go into one pool. It is counterproductive to use
> individual pools for machines as that means tapes aren't filled
> regularly and you're having to either keep lots in the changer or have
> to change tapes constantly.
yes but, as I said in my first post, I'm not usi
On 09/28/10 03:40, dobbin wrote:
>
>> There is no benefit on the creation of 100 pools for 100 different jobs
>> / servers.
>
>
> I don't understand what you mean, each server is backed up seperately, I have
> 100 servers, therefore I run 100 backup jobs and therefore have 100 pools
>
> unle
dobbin wrote:
>> There is no benefit on the creation of 100 pools for 100 different jobs
>> / servers.
>
>
> I don't understand what you mean, each server is backed up seperately, I have
> 100 servers, therefore I run 100 backup jobs and therefore have 100 pools
>
> unless I'm misunderstandin
> There is no benefit on the creation of 100 pools for 100 different jobs
> / servers.
I don't understand what you mean, each server is backed up seperately, I have
100 servers, therefore I run 100 backup jobs and therefore have 100 pools
unless I'm misunderstanding the meaning of pool
>
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 4:58 AM, dobbin wrote:
> when I say 100 backups, I mean 100 different servers with different pools.
>
>
>> Wait a minute this has to fail. I mean you said you do 100 backups in
>> 12 hours but then your configuration has use the volume once (and hold
>> each volume for 65 d
On 27-09-2010 05:58, dobbin wrote:
> when I say 100 backups, I mean 100 different servers with different pools.
>
There is no benefit on the creation of 100 pools for 100 different jobs
/ servers.
--
Start uncovering
when I say 100 backups, I mean 100 different servers with different pools.
> Wait a minute this has to fail. I mean you said you do 100 backups in
> 12 hours but then your configuration has use the volume once (and hold
> each volume for 65 days after using) so that at maximum 65 jobs can be
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
