On 3/4/2011 1:56 PM, Dan Pritts wrote:
>
> On Mar 2, 2011, at 10:25 PM, David Birnbaum wrote:
>
>> Craig,
>>
>> I realize a lot's gone into your thinking for 4.0 - I was wondering if it
>> would be possible to offer some sort of "cost" parameter to the host
>> configuration. Specifically, we have local hosts (backing up via a
>
> Along similar lines, we backup a lot of VMware VMs as well as physical hosts.
> I expect my backup hardware could back up concurrent clients, but it would
> hammer the
> vmware storage if we did more than a couple of *those* concurrently.
>
> We can't be the only ones with this problem.
>
> In practice we just keep the concurrency down and we make it fit in our
> backup window,
> but that won't scale infinitely.
The concurrency control really needs some kind of 'grouping' concept to
tie physical constraints together. For example, to group VM guests and
the common host, or to group remote systems sharing limited WAN
bandwidth or a router link you don't want to swamp. The idea would be
to have a setting to limit concurrency within a group while continuing
to run members outside of the group up to a different limit. Amanda had
something like that related to network segments but I've forgotten how
it was used.
--
Les Mikesell
[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You
This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details
its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative
solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-devel mailing list
[email protected]
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-devel
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
