This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C2FAC9.1C4D1760
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
It works well for us.
We have files that are archived for 7 years - each archive set can be
between 300GB & 1000GB. For safety's sake, and to speed restores in the
need to recover some archived information, we keep an onsite & offsite copy.
Inline Tape Copy lets us create both of these copies at the same time and
save the need to duplicate. Performance is at least 100% better than
duplication.
In duplication scenario, we'd spend perhaps 4 hours making a backup, then at
least 4 hours re-reading it to make a duplicate - probably more as
duplications seem to run a bit slow. With ITC, we just write two copies in
four hours & we're done. The penalty is that a lot of tape drives are in
use at once - we occasionally have problems with scheduled backups waiting
on the archiving process.
Note, an ITC copy will only run as fast as the slowest tape drive. If
you're doing a multi-library thing, you'll want to try to match drive types.
HTH - M
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Jacobson [mailto:SJACOBSO AT novell DOT com]
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 9:19 AM
To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] 4.5 Vaulting In-Line Tape Copy
We are looking into this as the primary off-site/DR procedure of choice.
Can anyone speak to the "real" world usage of this process and indicate the
performance hit of the copy (two streams) vs the single stream backup
throughput?
Thanks,
Scott Jacobson
NetBackup Systems Administration
Data Retention and Storage Management
I. S. & T. Provo Operations
sjacobso AT novell DOT com <mailto:sjacobso AT novell DOT com>
Desk Direct: 801-861-7668
Toll Free: 800-453-1267 Ext. 1-7668
Cell: 801-560-6891
Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions
www.novell.com <http://www.novell.com>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C2FAC9.1C4D1760
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4923.2500" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt MS Sans Serif">
<DIV><SPAN class=487523616-04042003>It works well for us.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=487523616-04042003></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=487523616-04042003>We have files that are archived for 7 years
- each archive set can be between 300GB & 1000GB. For safety's
sake, and to speed restores in the need to recover some
archived information, we keep an onsite & offsite copy.
Inline Tape Copy lets us create both of these copies at the same time and save
the need to duplicate. Performance is at least 100% better than
duplication.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=487523616-04042003></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=487523616-04042003>In duplication scenario, we'd spend
perhaps 4 hours making a backup, then at least 4 hours re-reading it to make a
duplicate - probably more as duplications seem to run a bit slow. With
ITC, we just write two copies in four hours & we're done. The penalty
is that a lot of tape drives are in use at once - we occasionally have problems
with scheduled backups waiting on the archiving process.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=487523616-04042003></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=487523616-04042003>Note, an ITC copy will only run as fast as
the slowest tape drive. If you're doing a multi-library thing, you'll
want
to try to match drive types.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=487523616-04042003></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=487523616-04042003>HTH - M</SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Scott Jacobson
[mailto:SJACOBSO AT novell DOT com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, April 04, 2003
9:19
AM<BR><B>To:</B> veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu<BR><B>Subject:</B>
[Veritas-bu] 4.5 Vaulting In-Line Tape Copy<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>We are looking into this as the primary off-site/DR procedure of
choice.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Can anyone speak to the "real" world usage of this process and indicate
the performance hit of the copy (two streams) vs the single stream
backup
throughput?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanks,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Scott Jacobson<BR>NetBackup Systems Administration<BR>Data Retention and
Storage Management<BR>I. S. & T. Provo Operations<BR><A
href="mailto:sjacobso AT novell DOT com">sjacobso AT novell DOT
com</A><BR>Desk
Direct: 801-861-7668<BR>Toll
Free: 800-453-1267 Ext.
1-7668<BR>Cell:
801-560-6891<BR>Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business
solutions<BR><A
href="http://www.novell.com";>www.novell.com</A></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C2FAC9.1C4D1760--
|
