Re: Holding disk (feature request)
At 15:15 04.01.01 -0800, Seth D. Mattinen wrote: Add an option that does backups to a holding drive instead of directly to tape. When the holding drive is full or the backup of the client is complete (whichever comes first), transfer the holding drive backup set to a tape backup set. After all is done and on tape, clear the holding drive. Yes, please! That is the one thing that puts Amanda in front of Retrospect (for the platforms it supports ;). 1) Parallel backups of multiple clients. I don't see how one could do parallel backups to tape efficiently, but to a holding disk is a different story. Once it's done the holding disk gets transferred to tape and cleared off for the next round of backups. 2) Increase speed of backups. Local hard drive to local tape drive is much faster than remote client direct to tape. The tape drive can then run at its maximum speed if everything is done locally. Also allows for more efficient use of tape. On our R3 server (2x PPro 200, 768 MB RAM, RAID 1+5, DLT on separate controller), Retrospect is shoeshining the DLT when backing up the D drive with lots of little binaries and config files; I get ~20MB/min. A holding disk would be a real gain there. 3) If Retrospect needs more tapes, backups can still proceed to the holding drive rather than be halted completely until more tapes are available. So, what does everyone think? Good idea or not? Great idea. Though I am not sure they see the problem at Dantz: I had a Dantz representative tell me that RS would have no problem with keeping a DLT streaming over 10BaseT... hauke -- Hauke FathTangro Software Components GmbH D-69115 Heidelberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ruf +49-6221-13336-0, Fax -21 -- -- To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives:http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/ Search: http://www.mail-archive.com/retro-talk%40latchkey.com/ For urgent issues, please contact Dantz technical support directly at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 925.253.3050.
Re: Holding disk (feature request)
At 10:48 05.01.01 +1100, Michael Kennard wrote: Just a thought, when does it get time to copy to tape, this seems good in theory but I guess it could only be efficient if you can run multiple backup sessions in parallel. Yep. The moment you interleave backups to holding disk and dumping (finished) backups from there to tape, you gain. I'm not sure about the problem with speed, I think tape drives can keep up with network speeds though I can't tell you that for certain. It's the other way 'round: High end tapes (DLT, AIT) are faster than the filesystem/network combo. hauke -- Hauke FathTangro Software Components GmbH D-69115 Heidelberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ruf +49-6221-13336-0, Fax -21 -- -- To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives:http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/ Search: http://www.mail-archive.com/retro-talk%40latchkey.com/ For urgent issues, please contact Dantz technical support directly at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 925.253.3050.
Feature Request: Format Progress
Hi, I have learned that it takes up to 40 minutes to format a CD-RW and several minutes to format a tape. When formatting media, we have that little radar screen spinning around. This doesn't offer much information in the way of progress. It would be nice if we had a progress screen to show how much has been done and how long we have to wait. Thanks. ___ Scott Dunn Systems Engineer South Shore Building Services www.southshoreinc.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives:http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/ Search: http://www.mail-archive.com/retro-talk%40latchkey.com/ For urgent issues, please contact Dantz technical support directly at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 925.253.3050.
RE: Holding disk (feature request)
RE: Holding disk This is something that can be done now; just run one backup to the holding disk, then another from that to tape. If this two-step process was managed by Retrospect (rather than being done with two scripts) it would still have to copy and verify on each pass so there probably wouldn't be much speed difference. I think the best way of doing it would be to run Backup Server overnight to backup clients, then run another Backup Server during the day to tape. That way you can juggle the server active times to optimise backup - and be around to swop tapes... -- -- To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives:http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/ Search: http://www.mail-archive.com/retro-talk%40latchkey.com/ For urgent issues, please contact Dantz technical support directly at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 925.253.3050.
Holding disk (feature request)
Since it seems we're on the subject of feature requests, speeds of backups over network to tape and so on, here's what I'd like to see added to Retrospect. I'll be talking about tapes because that's what I use, but I'm sure this would apply to any sort of backup set. Add an option that does backups to a holding drive instead of directly to tape. When the holding drive is full or the backup of the client is complete (whichever comes first), transfer the holding drive backup set to a tape backup set. After all is done and on tape, clear the holding drive. This would be kind of like doing a set transfer from a file backup set to a tape backup set, but in an automated way. This would accomplish a few things from my perspective. 1) Parallel backups of multiple clients. I don't see how one could do parallel backups to tape efficiently, but to a holding disk is a different story. Once it's done the holding disk gets transferred to tape and cleared off for the next round of backups. 2) Increase speed of backups. Local hard drive to local tape drive is much faster than remote client direct to tape. The tape drive can then run at its maximum speed if everything is done locally. Also allows for more efficient use of tape. 3) If Retrospect needs more tapes, backups can still proceed to the holding drive rather than be halted completely until more tapes are available. So, what does everyone think? Good idea or not? -- Seth D. Mattinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://roller.reno.nv.us/ PGP Key: http://seth.mattinen.org/pgp.php Tomorrow holds such better days. Days when I can still feel alive. -- -- To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives:http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/ Search: http://www.mail-archive.com/retro-talk%40latchkey.com/ For urgent issues, please contact Dantz technical support directly at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 925.253.3050.
Re: Holding disk (feature request)
Just a thought, when does it get time to copy to tape, this seems good in theory but I guess it could only be efficient if you can run multiple backup sessions in parallel. I'm not sure about the problem with speed, I think tape drives can keep up with network speeds though I can't tell you that for certain. I do like the idea of the hard drive taking over as a fail over, "the backup must go on". Thanks for this idea. I did try something like this for Internet backups and put to tape till the files got corrupted and I had to scrap the whole idea. Lets see what dantz thinks. Michael Since it seems we're on the subject of feature requests, speeds of backups over network to tape and so on, here's what I'd like to see added to Retrospect. I'll be talking about tapes because that's what I use, but I'm sure this would apply to any sort of backup set. Add an option that does backups to a holding drive instead of directly to tape. When the holding drive is full or the backup of the client is complete (whichever comes first), transfer the holding drive backup set to a tape backup set. After all is done and on tape, clear the holding drive. This would be kind of like doing a set transfer from a file backup set to a tape backup set, but in an automated way. This would accomplish a few things from my perspective. 1) Parallel backups of multiple clients. I don't see how one could do parallel backups to tape efficiently, but to a holding disk is a different story. Once it's done the holding disk gets transferred to tape and cleared off for the next round of backups. 2) Increase speed of backups. Local hard drive to local tape drive is much faster than remote client direct to tape. The tape drive can then run at its maximum speed if everything is done locally. Also allows for more efficient use of tape. 3) If Retrospect needs more tapes, backups can still proceed to the holding drive rather than be halted completely until more tapes are available. So, what does everyone think? Good idea or not? -- Seth D. Mattinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://roller.reno.nv.us/ PGP Key: http://seth.mattinen.org/pgp.php Tomorrow holds such better days. Days when I can still feel alive. -- -- To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives:http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/ Search: http://www.mail-archive.com/retro-talk%40latchkey.com/ For urgent issues, please contact Dantz technical support directly at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 925.253.3050.
RE: Holding disk (feature request)
Perhaps the process could queue the files in 650MB (or whatever) size chunks which could then be copied to tape as soon as the first one on the disk is complete. If the tape drive ran faster than the system could fetch the data from the clients, you could simply increase the number of backup processes writing to the holding area. My tape drives can write data faster than I can get it from the network if the files are small (in fact, I often see reduced tape capacities because of all of the small files). If they're large files, tape speed is probably the bottleneck. I have seen nearly 200MB/min on a switched 100MB connection with my drives (OnStream ADR50). I still think it would be great to be able to get the client machines to do the catalog compares and snapshot creations in parallel and just have the server fetch the data and write it to tape. As for disk space concerns, I purchased a 40GB 7200 RPM Ultra 100 drive yesterday for $177. I wouldn't use IDE drives for network storage, but as a buffer, I think it would work fine. ...Doug -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of matt barkdull Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 5:36 PM To: retro-talk Subject: Re: Holding disk (feature request) Just a thought, when does it get time to copy to tape, this seems good in theory but I guess it could only be efficient if you can run multiple backup sessions in parallel. I'm not sure about the problem with speed, I think tape drives can keep up with network speeds though I can't tell you that for certain. I do like the idea of the hard drive taking over as a fail over, "the backup must go on". This might work well for clients with small amounts of data, but just imagine trying to keep more disk space than your clients on the server. Didn't we just go through a discussion on file sizes? So if you do a backup to file, there is a limitation of 2GB(?) of that file. If they break that barrier, then the rest of the stuff is fairly easy I would think. -- -- To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives:http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/ Search: http://www.mail-archive.com/retro-talk%40latchkey.com/ For urgent issues, please contact Dantz technical support directly at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 925.253.3050.
feature request
While we have been successful in eliminating most of the problem backup computers, we are still struggling with a few more. In particular, if a backup computer slows to a crawl (as one last did) then the backup nevers finishes overnight. For example, one of our problem Macs started backing up at 10:56 PM last night, and it has only copied 47 Mb at 9:30 AM this morning! My feature request would be to have a "skip" client option along with the "pause" and "stop" options so that either you could manually skip a client, or even better, set a parameter to skip a client if the backup on that client has exceeded "X" minutes/hours. Any likelihood of this being implemented? Thanks. Jeffry C. Nichols, PhD Instructor/Lab Coordinator Rice University Biochemistry Department Houston, Texas Phone: 713-348-2660 -- -- To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives:http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/ Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: feature request
At 9:27 AM -0500 8/18/00, Jeffry C. Nichols wrote: My feature request would be to have a "skip" client option along with the "pause" and "stop" options so that either you could manually skip a client, or even better, set a parameter to skip a client if the backup on that client has exceeded "X" minutes/hours. I second the motion. Or maybe a minimum transfer rate threshold? HP -- -- To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives:http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/ Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: feature request
I believe this feature already exists (at least it does in the Mac 4.2 version) Check your script options. At 9:27 AM -0500 8/18/00, Jeffry C. Nichols wrote: My feature request would be to have a "skip" client option along with the "pause" and "stop" options so that either you could manually skip a client, or even better, set a parameter to skip a client if the backup on that client has exceeded "X" minutes/hours. I second the motion. Or maybe a minimum transfer rate threshold? HP -- -- To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives:http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/ Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Philip Chonacky, IS Manager Barrett Companies ph. (617) 577-9500 fx. (617) 577-1010 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives:http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/ Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: feature request
You can set the script to skip a client, but the great thing would be if there is a skip button to do it from the progress/status window. There has been many times that could have used this feature Jeff Johnson System Administrator Just Partners 1710 East Franklin Street, Suite 150 Richmond, VA 23223 (804) 698-6309 [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Philip Chonacky [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: "retro-talk" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:47:18 -0400 To: "retro-talk" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: feature request I believe this feature already exists (at least it does in the Mac 4.2 version) Check your script options. At 9:27 AM -0500 8/18/00, Jeffry C. Nichols wrote: My feature request would be to have a "skip" client option along with the "pause" and "stop" options so that either you could manually skip a client, or even better, set a parameter to skip a client if the backup on that client has exceeded "X" minutes/hours. I second the motion. Or maybe a minimum transfer rate threshold? HP -- -- To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives:http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/ Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Philip Chonacky, IS Manager Barrett Companies ph. (617) 577-9500 fx. (617) 577-1010 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives:http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/ Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives:http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/ Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Idle Feature Request
Here's a middle-of-the-night feature request... I'd love to be able to monitor Retrospect's performance more interactively (I'm talking about watching the application window, not across the network). Would it be possible to change the "Source Performance" details to include "recent" throughput and "peak" throughput? This might help a frazzled administrator make decisions during backup or restore (or a re-catalog like I'm doing...) Regards, -- Ben Lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] I.T. Manager, FCB Canada Ltd. -- -- To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives:http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/ Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
