Maser Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 Hi all... So, I wanted to see if there were any significant speed improvements in Retrospect 6.0 that would make it worthwhile to upgrade from 5.1 as there are *no other* new features that would interest me in backing up my 350 computers here (no terrabyte issues, etc.). I've made a lot of minor feature improvement suggestions in the past, but none of them hit the 6.0 version, so the only thing I was really looking at was the quoted: "Retrospect 6.0 is 20 to 100% faster than previous OS X versions for backing up to local hard disk." I have a number of different backup systems here -- all using SCSI cards with DLT drives. I saw *no* speed improvements doing the following tests: On two different systems with 5.1 installed, I installed 6.0 trial as well. Ran a backup of the internal hard disk with 5.1, then restarted and ran a backup with 6.0. While a reboot changes some files, this is about as "equal" a test with the only difference being the software. Backup catalogs were created by backing up a 1K file to initialize the tape, then by doing an immediate backup with no verification. 5.1 catalog files were *not* compressed so this wasn't a factor in comparing the overall time for backup. Times were watched from the time "backup" was clicked until "execution completed" came up. System 1: G4/450/450M RAM with hard disk partitioned. Backup device is an old APS DLT 4000 tape drive (40G theoretical max compression with tape) with an Adaptec 2906 SCSI card (current drivers with Panther) With 5.1 -- backup was 47 min (about 90M/min) With 6.0 -- backup was 47 min. (about 90M/min) System 2: G4/533/900M RAM. Backup Device is an APS DLT 8000 (80G theoretical maximum) drive with an Adaptec 29160 card with 1.2 drivers -- not the 1.1 Panther drivers. with 5.1 -- backup was about 31 min (193M/min) with 6.0 -- backup was about 33 min (196M/min) Nowhere near the minimum 20% possible improvement. I ran these tests about 4 times. And, yes, there were *no* improvements in backing up network clients -- something that would have been another big selling point. For me, there's no speed improvement with 6.0 and, as such, there's little (for me) to justify the upgrade price here. In "backup server" mode, 5.1 works just fine in Panther -- even with my Adaptec SCSI cards. FWIW. YMMV, etc... If I'm missing some new preferences in 6.0 that might improve the speeds of "local disk backup", please pass them on and I'd be happy to rerun these tests. - Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 The speed improvements relate to using a hard disk as the backup device rather then a tape drive. File backup sets, rather then tape backup sets. In your case, the tape drive may be the bottleneck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maser Posted January 27, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 Ah, that might explain it then. Unfortunately, I can not justify this upgrade internally as -- for me -- 5.1 is working with Panther. Usually, there are *some* advantages to an upgrade, but from the release notes, there aren't -- at least until I replace my backup CPUs with G5s or something. Or that the next version contains some of the features that I -- and others -- would like to see (size thresholds, speed thresholds that don't affect restores, closing Outlook on Windows clients, etc...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lerner Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 *corrections* * Retro5 + 10.2.1 = 700MB/*MIN peak transfer rate from local hard drive to tape after server updates on Monday; * Retro6 + 10.2.8 update = over 1000MB/*MIN peak transfer rate from local hard drive to tape library/drive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maser Posted January 28, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 What kind of tape drive/connection? 1000M/sec? You mean 1000M/min, right? (And even that seems high for *anything*. You'd have to have a rocket for a hard disk and a hemi in your tape drive....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lerner Posted January 29, 2004 Report Share Posted January 29, 2004 oops my bad! It peaked around 1054MB/Min. specs: dual G4 1.25ghz 2GB DDR 4x - seagate Cheetah 73LP, Model Number:ST373405LW Capacity:73 GB Speed:10000 rpm Seek time:5.1 ms avg Interface:Ultra160 SCSI ADIC Scalar100 tape library w/ 1 - IBM Ultrium-TD1 drive (LTO-1/LVD) - External SCSI ULtra something 160 probably. hemi maybe, more like a 440 six pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.