RE: ontape vs onbar

> Neil Truby wrote: >> IDS 10.0FC3 on Solaris 9 >> I'm doing some backups to disk. >> An ontape backup of the 30G database with a 768k TAPEBLK takes about 25 >> mins, but an onbar -b -L 0 takes over twice as long. > How many dbspaces? >Root, log log, phys log (3 x temp), one large application dbspace. > What is your storage manager? >ISM >How does onbar -b -w run? >From the command line: onbar -b -w -L 0 BAR_MAX_BACKUP identifies how many backup threads Informix will use to push pages/images to your storage manager. (ours, with netbackup as storage manager is set to 12... this is related to your storage manager). Also, what is your BAR_RETRY set to? Ours is set to 2, this means if for some reason the first attempt at the backup of a dbspace fails, it will retry again. (or retry 2x, so maybe 3 attempts before it gives up on that dbspace). Check your DB log. You may see that the large app dbspace is not backing up on first attempt? At first you listed you run onbar -b -L 0, that is different than onbar -b -w -L 0. A whole backup (the -w option) will run single threaded like ontape (which is what you said you were benchmarking against, so maybe you do want the -w option). Not using the "-w" option can give you much better speed if your other supporting parameters are optimized. ============================================================ The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs ============================================================ sending to informix-list