At this point I am not concerned with CPU cycles spent on compression or 
on
network bandwidth. I am trying to use PIPEDDR (with my own kludge for TAP
E
output). The CPU cycles for compression would not be as much of a problem
 as
the CPU cycles I want to spent on data ENCRYPTION prior to writing out to

tape. If my customer ever gets a backup data center of their own, I will
look into PIPEDDR (with encryption) for network transfer of backups.

/Tom Kern
/301-903-2211

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:45:25 +0200, Rob van der Heij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>Depends on what your criteria are. Do understand that "terse" takes
>quite some CPU cycles and depending on the resources available, that
>may become the bottleneck. When you transfer large chunks of data over
>long haul connections there will be latency issues that get important
>(and it may be more attractive to run multiple streams). And you may
>also find that your mainframe connection was improperly defined in the
>switch with an asymmetric bandwidth capping...
>
>Long before Bruce did his PIPEDDR, I wrote my IP-DDR package (after
>all, I got the track* stages for my birthday). It's initial raison
>d'etre was to keep a copy of the RACF database on a DR site. Since our
>RACF database was defined rather big, only a small number of tracks
>would be changed in a day. So my IP-DDR used a per-track checksum that
>was exchanged between both ends to decide whether a track should be
>sent at all. The per-track approach also allows for doing multiple
>streams in parallel and use a connection only for a small amount of
>data (to fool the bandwidth shaping). The checksum thing turned out to
>be very helpful also to restart a transfer after something interrupted
>it.
>
>Since it's not uncommon to have disks partially "empty" when you need
>to transfer them, the Piper created "tracksquish" to have cheap
>compression of empty tracks. I also used that a lot to keep a copy of
>a Linux disk with empty file system.
>
>I recently talked to John about the value of having zlib stages, but
>it did not happen yet...
>
>Rob

Reply via email to