Jump to content

jackie_m

Members
  • Content count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jackie_m

  • Rank
    Occasional forum poster
  1. For my clients, they're all wired and can get at least 1MB/sec effective throughput to the server via ftp. Many are at 10MB/sec (10bT and 100bT respectively).
  2. We're preparing to change from backing up exclusively to tape in our building to backing up across the campus LAN here (currently the server is at 100bT, effective 10MB/s throughput across campus) to another building for an off site backup (as opposed to transporting tapes to the other building). The total volume of the department's backup takes about 400GB of tape space before rotating tape sets. Straight backup to tape of the volumes in the workgroup happen ad a good rate, probably the max of the tape drive, about 400MB/min or so. In a test setup, backing up to an ftp server in the building, the internet backup set performs horribly slow. A rate of 50MB/min over the internet backup is the current max of this, despite plenty of bandwidth and low latency on the servers involved (Retrospect on a 2x2GG G5/2GB RAM OSX box, running 6.1.126 with a 100bT connection and the recieving ftp server is a 2GB linux box also on a 100bT drop). I have tried with DES, FastCrypt, and no encryption, with some improvement as the encryption level drops, but it's still painfully slow. Sustained transfers on the network are not the problem, as an ftp transfer between the server is maxing at 10MB/s for at least 1GB of test transfer. Is there anything that can be done for speeding up an internet backup set? This is too slow to be useful, and makes the internet backup set limited to anything but a small backup, not the stuff of the department level. I want to do this, but it just doesn't appear practical. Is this a washout? Is that a problem with Retrospect itself? The Mac version (which is still far from it's OS 9 roots, since it's a CFM app)? Would the windows version server me better here? Or am I SOL and walking tapes to the other building, since I can't even do a remote tape mount on OSX? (note, I've reposted this under the right forum this time, since this is an OSX version and I posted it under the OS 9 forum.)
  3. But the consistency of the station wagon depends on the scatter brained sysadmin in charge of making sure the tapes get driven (and that would be me). I prefer trusting the computer to remember over my own memory.
  4. We're preparing to change from backing up exclusively to tape in our building to backing up across the campus LAN here (currently the server is at 100bT, effective 10MB/s throughput across campus) to another building for an off site backup (as opposed to transporting tapes to the other building). The total volume of the department's backup takes about 400GB of tape space before rotating tape sets. Straight backup to tape of the volumes in the workgroup happen ad a good rate, probably the max of the tape drive, about 400MB/min or so. In a test setup, backing up to an ftp server in the building, the internet backup set performs horribly slow. A rate of 50MB/min over the internet backup is the current max of this, despite plenty of bandwidth and low latency on the servers involved (Retrospect on a 2x2GG G5/2GB RAM OSX box, running 6.1.126 with a 100bT connection and the recieving ftp server is a 2GB linux box also on a 100bT drop). I have tried with DES, FastCrypt, and no encryption, with some improvement as the encryption level drops, but it's still painfully slow. Sustained transfers on the network are not the problem, as an ftp transfer between the server is maxing at 10MB/s for at least 1GB of test transfer. Is there anything that can be done for speeding up an internet backup set? This is too slow to be useful, and makes the internet backup set limited to anything but a small backup, not the stuff of the department level. I want to do this, but it just doesn't appear practical. Is this a washout? Is that a problem with Retrospect itself? The Mac version (which is still far from it's OS 9 roots, since it's a CFM app)? Would the windows version server me better here? Or am I SOL and walking tapes to the other building, since I can't even do a remote tape mount on OSX?
×