- Community Home
- >
- Storage
- >
- Data Protection and Retention
- >
- StoreEver Tape Storage
- >
- 2 in 2/20
StoreEver Tape Storage
1748256
Members
3807
Online
108760
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
юдл
back
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
юдл
back
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Blogs
Information
Community
Resources
Community Language
Language
Forums
Blogs
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-30-2001 08:06 AM
тАО06-30-2001 08:06 AM
2 in 2/20
Hello!
How can I use 2 mechanisms in 2/20
or 2/40? Is it possible to do striping
(something like raid0) for better performance?
Or I can use 2 machinisms for mirroring
written info on two tapes?
Is it possible to use mc in HP-UX
to control this libraries?
btw, is 2/20 supported on Linux?
How can I use 2 mechanisms in 2/20
or 2/40? Is it possible to do striping
(something like raid0) for better performance?
Or I can use 2 machinisms for mirroring
written info on two tapes?
Is it possible to use mc in HP-UX
to control this libraries?
btw, is 2/20 supported on Linux?
2 REPLIES 2
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО07-02-2001 12:59 PM
тАО07-02-2001 12:59 PM
Re: 2 in 2/20
Dmitry,
The 2/20 has 2 slots for DLT or Ultrium drives (the 4/40 has 4). You can configure RAIT (redundant aaray of inexpensive (..) tapedrives) on this unit but you will have to use software that is able to drive that process as most operating systems don't have that functionality natively.
On HP-UX you can use mc to control the library controller.
best regards,
-Cal.
ps. Most linux distributions will support the DLT drives natively. To drive the Library controller in Linux you will have to use an equivalent of mc for Linux. Not sure if mtx (1.2.9.1) will do that job though.
The 2/20 has 2 slots for DLT or Ultrium drives (the 4/40 has 4). You can configure RAIT (redundant aaray of inexpensive (..) tapedrives) on this unit but you will have to use software that is able to drive that process as most operating systems don't have that functionality natively.
On HP-UX you can use mc to control the library controller.
best regards,
-Cal.
ps. Most linux distributions will support the DLT drives natively. To drive the Library controller in Linux you will have to use an equivalent of mc for Linux. Not sure if mtx (1.2.9.1) will do that job though.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО07-04-2001 10:02 PM
тАО07-04-2001 10:02 PM
Re: 2 in 2/20
Omniback - HP's enterprise tape backup software, which I support, does something a little bit like striping... it is not truly striping - and many customers would like to make it better... but in many respects it is probably something that would meet your needs.
Omniback uses a 'disk agent' for every mounted filesystem that you wish to backup. As many as 5 disk agents can be writing to a media agent (tape drive) at the same time, so the tape drive may be kept streaming.
You may also backup to several tape drives. There is a list of disk agents 'pending' - not yet started - which will backup to which ever tape drive may become available.
The limit that people complain about... an object (filesystem) will only go to ONE TAPE DRIVE - it is NOT STRIPED ACROSS SEVERAL DRIVES - and so is not truly RAID.
If you know you have one file system that is truly length, you can break it up into several logical parts using EXCLUDE / INCLUDE sorts of operations... backup the same drive twice - once with /dir1 and /dir2 excluded and once with /dir3 and dir4 excluded...
In that case, obviously, you are providing the load balancing... but it is certainly feasible.
Of course there may be hidden issues. On the NT platform, for example, St. Bernards (and HP's) Open File Manager (OFM) only expects one copy of Omniback per filesystem... and can error if two agents are running against the same filesystem.
Also, such manual balancing is not 'free' - that is it is not twice as fast to use two agents, their is some overhead.
Similar tweaks probably apply to our competitors as well.
Good Luck.
Omniback uses a 'disk agent' for every mounted filesystem that you wish to backup. As many as 5 disk agents can be writing to a media agent (tape drive) at the same time, so the tape drive may be kept streaming.
You may also backup to several tape drives. There is a list of disk agents 'pending' - not yet started - which will backup to which ever tape drive may become available.
The limit that people complain about... an object (filesystem) will only go to ONE TAPE DRIVE - it is NOT STRIPED ACROSS SEVERAL DRIVES - and so is not truly RAID.
If you know you have one file system that is truly length, you can break it up into several logical parts using EXCLUDE / INCLUDE sorts of operations... backup the same drive twice - once with /dir1 and /dir2 excluded and once with /dir3 and dir4 excluded...
In that case, obviously, you are providing the load balancing... but it is certainly feasible.
Of course there may be hidden issues. On the NT platform, for example, St. Bernards (and HP's) Open File Manager (OFM) only expects one copy of Omniback per filesystem... and can error if two agents are running against the same filesystem.
Also, such manual balancing is not 'free' - that is it is not twice as fast to use two agents, their is some overhead.
Similar tweaks probably apply to our competitors as well.
Good Luck.
Omniback and NT problems? double check name resolution, DNS/HOSTS...
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Hewlett Packard Enterprise. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.
News and Events
Support
© Copyright 2024 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP