Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:
> On 01/28 09:15 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Carl, can you explain this idea with more details. Please.
>> I don't see exactly why it will be worth with this solution.
>
> My concern is that sending the data over the wire to a NAS will be much
> slower than using local disk. There's a lot more operations involved in NFS
> requests and responses; and like I said, BackupPC tends to be disk-speed
> limited in my experience.
The speed issue is mostly disk-seek related, though, and actual
operation will depend on the NAS itself. Something like a NetApp can be
faster than local disks. NFS can be configured for synchronous writes
where each operation is not considered complete until the server has
first done a sync to disk. That mode will be much slower than using
local disks which normally are buffered, but async mode should be
reasonably fast.
--
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
