My experience in this is dated.  But, through mid-90's, using *SAVF was
DEFINITLY and CONSIDERABLY slower, but allows multiple concurrent backups,
so can close down the backup window quite a bit.  (I didn't read article,
but depends how you define "speed".)  My recollection is using *SAVF for
Large, but relatively few, objects is Particularly Slow.  Using for lot's of
small objects wasn't so much different (presumably because the overhead of
dealing with all the locks and such is same in both cases).

I would be SOMEwhat amazed if that's changed a Whole lot.  Plus, I didn't
experiment with *SAVF in separate ASP to try to improve the speed, but tape
drives are getting exceptionally fast these days.  (Iow, ymmv.)

| -----Original Message-----
| [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Ingvaldson, Scott
| Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 1:18 PM

| The Search400 Administrator Tip of the day today is called "Want
| to speed up
| your nightly backups? Use save files"
| http://search400.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid3_gci957211,00.htm
| l?track=NL
| -176&ad=479313
|
| Has anyone done any comparison testing on this?  It is my
| understanding that
| after disk arm contention is taken into consideration that a save to SAVF
| can actually be slower than a save to tape in many cases.




As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.