On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Ryan Novosielski wrote:
So, I have switched to spooling, on the advice I've seen written recently...
sounds like the way to go, especially if you only have one tape drive. I
expected a speed increase too, as the drive would be used more efficiently.
What I did not expect i
Hi,
On 1/31/2006 5:42 PM, Ryan Novosielski wrote:
Ah! Never even occurred to me.
Is there ANY way to get the tape head speed, other than attempting to do
it mathematically?
not completely without matematics... but when you look into the job
reports, you'll notice that they give time and an
Ah! Never even occurred to me.
Is there ANY way to get the tape head speed, other than attempting to do
it mathematically?
_ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _
|Y#| | | |\/| | \ |\ | | | Ryan Novosielski - User Support Spec. III
|$&| |__| | | |__/ | \| _| | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 973/972.0922 (2-0922)
Hi,
When bacula is sending from the spool to the tape, are there some tasks that
are locked ? (all the backups using the spool, the backup being sent to
tape...) ?
Le Mardi 31 Janvier 2006 17:32, Steve Loughran a écrit :
> IHi Ryan
>
> ts because the data is being transferred twice, once from
Not as far as I know :(
Steve
Ryan Novosielski wrote:
Ah! Never even occurred to me.
Is there ANY way to get the tape head speed, other than attempting to do
it mathematically?
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you g
IHi Ryan
ts because the data is being transferred twice, once from client to the
spool area , then again from the spool area to $TAPE. From a backup
point of view, its taken longer to backup the same amount of data.
What would be nice is two separate values, one for spool data rate and
one f
So, I have switched to spooling, on the advice I've seen written
recently... sounds like the way to go, especially if you only have one
tape drive. I expected a speed increase too, as the drive would be used
more efficiently. What I did not expect is the 1000Kps speed DECREASE.
Can anyone tell
