> I'm looking for information about how/whether a slow client may impact
> the performance of other backup clients.  One source that I've consulted
> is telling me that one slow client multiplexed onto a tape with faster
> clients will slow down the faster clients.  Is this possible?

That's not what I've seen.  Now you don't want to multiplex too many
hosts onto your drive, but if one is slow, I've seen that it doesn't
affect the others greatly.

When you do the restore, you're going to have to read a *lot* of tape
though.  This may not be a big problem, because you might be waiting on
the slow client for the restore also.  If you're doing a local restore
of the data though, it will slow you down.

> They are recommending that I segregate the slower clients in my
> environment onto a separate pool or within a separate group so that this
> doesn't happen.  Is this correct?  It was my impression that groups and
> pools were designed to logically segregate data based on data
> requirements rather than as tools to tune a backup's performance.

Hmm.  It would depend on the exact circumstances, but I haven't seen
this be a source of problems before.

I'd prefer to create pools only for retention/storage requirements.
That simplifies things most of the way.

--
Darren Dunham                                           ddunham AT taos DOT com
Senior Technical Consultant         TAOS            http://www.taos.com/
Got some Dr Pepper?                           San Francisco, CA bay area
         < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >

--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list. Questions regarding this list
should be sent to stan AT temple DOT edu
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=