Re: [Bacula-users] Multiplexing multiple jobs to tape

2007-09-13 Thread Ryan Novosielski
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 There were at one time serious problems with this when it came to reading the data back. I would test it out even if you do plan to use it, but apparently restores will be much quicker/more reliable if you do not do this and instead spool the data. Al

Re: [Bacula-users] Multiplexing multiple jobs to tape

2007-09-13 Thread Alan Brown
Chris Howells wrote: > Hi, > > I am trying to figure out whether bacula supports multiplexing multiple > simultaneous backup jobs to the same tape - having googled, the results > are inconclusive :) > Yes, but you end up with interleaved jobs on tape and restore becomes VERY slow due to the d

Re: [Bacula-users] Multiplexing multiple jobs to tape

2007-09-03 Thread Justin Piszcz
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Chris Howells wrote: > Hi John, > > John Drescher wrote: >>> I believe the 120MB/s is the raw speed, 240MB/s is the compressed speed. >>> >> I tried to check on that but I did not find the direct answer. But I >> did find an article by IBM that stated that LTO4 did 120MB/s wh

Re: [Bacula-users] Multiplexing multiple jobs to tape

2007-09-03 Thread Chris Howells
Justin Piszcz wrote: > Bacula now supports multiplexing? Yes, that's what this thread was about - I suggest you read the entire thing :) - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to fi

Re: [Bacula-users] Multiplexing multiple jobs to tape

2007-09-03 Thread Chris Howells
Hi John, John Drescher wrote: >> I believe the 120MB/s is the raw speed, 240MB/s is the compressed speed. >> > I tried to check on that but I did not find the direct answer. But I > did find an article by IBM that stated that LTO4 did 120MB/s while > LTO3 did 80MB/s. So I went to my tape vendor's

Re: [Bacula-users] Multiplexing multiple jobs to tape

2007-08-31 Thread John Drescher
> I believe the 120MB/s is the raw speed, 240MB/s is the compressed speed. > I tried to check on that but I did not find the direct answer. But I did find an article by IBM that stated that LTO4 did 120MB/s while LTO3 did 80MB/s. So I went to my tape vendor's web site and it stated that the 80MB/s

Re: [Bacula-users] Multiplexing multiple jobs to tape

2007-08-31 Thread Chris Howells
John Drescher wrote: >> I got 80MB/s, admittedly still some way off the supposed 120MB/s. >> > I believe this assumes a 2:1 compression rate which is highly > dependent on your data. I typically get 1.5:1 with my LTO2 drives and > my data. I believe the 120MB/s is the raw speed, 240MB/s is the com

Re: [Bacula-users] Multiplexing multiple jobs to tape

2007-08-31 Thread John Drescher
> I got 80MB/s, admittedly still some way off the supposed 120MB/s. > I believe this assumes a 2:1 compression rate which is highly dependent on your data. I typically get 1.5:1 with my LTO2 drives and my data. John - This SF

Re: [Bacula-users] Multiplexing multiple jobs to tape

2007-08-31 Thread Chris Howells
Hi, Arno Lehmann wrote: > First you need to enable job concurrency. That will require you to add > "Maximum Concurrent Jobs" in several places, which are well > documented. Furthermore, you might have to change the jobs and > schedules so that jobs actually run in parallel. The schedules are >

Re: [Bacula-users] Multiplexing multiple jobs to tape

2007-08-31 Thread Chris Howells
John Drescher wrote: > And you are using postgresql or > mysql for your database? And you had software compression off? Sorry, I didn't answer your final two questions. The catalog is MySQL and software compression is off. -

Re: [Bacula-users] Multiplexing multiple jobs to tape

2007-08-31 Thread Chris Howells
Hi, John Drescher wrote: > You are on a gigabit network? Yes. > And the bacula-sd device (machine > connected to the tape drive) is a fast machine with 2 or more > processors and at least 2GB of memory? And you are using postgresql or > mysql for your database? And you had software compression

Re: [Bacula-users] Multiplexing multiple jobs to tape

2007-08-31 Thread Chris Howells
Mike Ruskai wrote: > Since tape is a linear medium, and not random-access, the only plausible > way for what you suggest to work would be for Bacula to interleave data > blocks from two or more backup jobs. Yes. > At a minimum, this would require > writing incredible amounts of data to the bac

Re: [Bacula-users] Multiplexing multiple jobs to tape

2007-08-31 Thread John Drescher
> If it does support multiplexing, what kind of options do I need in the > config files? I currently have bacula talking to the drive, but I was > getting 25MB/sec backing up a 10gig file of zeros (admittedly from a > single SATA disk so that's not too surprising), but just 10MB/sec doing > a trial

Re: [Bacula-users] Multiplexing multiple jobs to tape

2007-08-31 Thread John Drescher
> Since tape is a linear medium, and not random-access, the only plausible > way for what you suggest to work would be for Bacula to interleave data > blocks from two or more backup jobs. This is what spooling is for. > At a minimum, this would require > writing incredible amounts of data to the

Re: [Bacula-users] Multiplexing multiple jobs to tape

2007-08-31 Thread Mike Ruskai
At 05:31 08/31/2007, Chris Howells wrote: Hi, I am trying to figure out whether bacula supports multiplexing multiple simultaneous backup jobs to the same tape - having googled, the results are inconclusive :) I am currently playing with an LTO-4 tape drive which has a raw data transfer rate of

Re: [Bacula-users] Multiplexing multiple jobs to tape

2007-08-31 Thread Arno Lehmann
Hi, 31.08.2007 11:31,, Chris Howells wrote:: > Hi, > > I am trying to figure out whether bacula supports multiplexing multiple > simultaneous backup jobs to the same tape - having googled, the results > are inconclusive :) The only correct answer is Yes. > I am currently playing with an LTO-4 t