Execution Unit trade-offs

[awnews]

I want to back up a single client PC at a time to a) minimize (10Mbps) network load and backup *each* client as quickly as possible. After adding several new clients for Proactive backup I had multiple (i.e. three execution units) run at the same time. I've changed all Proactive scripts from "use any available" to "Execution unit 1" so that all proactive scripts will run sequentially. Is this the best way to achieve my goal--minimal network bandwidth and fastest per-PC backup?

 

What will running multiple execution units achieve otherwise (e.g. same time to backup per PC but higher network load, no diff in network load, etc.)?

[natew]

Hi

 

That is a good solution. An easier way may be to limit the total number of execution units in Retrospect in the preferences. That way you won't have to script it manually.

 

With the network limitations in your environment youwon't save a ton of time doing multiple executions. There may be a time savings when file scans and snapshots are being built because they don't push much data across the wire. During that time you can be backing up data from other sources.

 

Nate

[awnews]

Thanks for the pointer to the Pres area. I hadn't looked Prefs, partially because the on-line help only mentions that Retro will auto-assign the number of execution units based on the PC's memory and doesn't mention the central pref location. So I did change the scripts back to "all available" and then set the limit in the Prefs.

 

I also decided, for now, to run with 2 execution units. This is partially based on your comments and also on noticing that I have at least one PC that is backing up very slowly (e.g. 3MB/min as opposed to 30-60MB/min for others). Having only one execution unit would line everybody up behind this slow PC (at least occasionally) whereas having two or more units means other backups can keep running without being impacted by a slow backup.