RE: Multiple libraries to a *SAVF?

[Evan Harris <spanner@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Dan

I worked at a site once that saved each library to a save file in a
specific library. This library was in a user ASP to provide some additional
protection while it remained unsaved and in the morning we would save all
the savf files to tape.

Since this was in the old reel-to-reel days this was a requirement to do
unattended night operations but was also quite a bit quicker than saving to
tape - the rewind time alone on my 3430 was a killer when doing system saves.

Things have changed since, but if you have the disk I find SAVF's
considerable easier to manipulate programmatically than tape.

A couple of other things to consider: once the library containing the
savf's was restored this would provide the option to run multiple restore
streams from your savf's as well if required. I also have a suspicion that
savf's might restore a bit quicker than libraries with many objects as they
might be packed onto tape better. This is just a guess based on the fact
that I have seen a 100 gigabyte file save  faster than the remaining 70gig
on the system, and also restored it quicker than the remaining 70 gig.

It would seem that restoring individual objects has a specific overhead
associated with rebuilding the object as distinct from the restore part
streaming the data from tape "into" the object.

Hope this provides another prespective.

Regards
Evan Harris

>I musta missed something.  If one needs to restore saved objects from a save
>file that stored in another save file, don't they have to restore the save
>file, and then do another restore from that save file?  How does that speed
>things up?
>
>Is it really worth the time to consolidate multiple save files into one?
>Not to mention the potential to not have enough disk space to restore a
>large consolidated save file to a system, and then restore from that save
>file.
>
>- Dan Bale
>(I am *NOT* "Dale"
>http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/200105/msg00281.html )