I am trying to run multiple instances of IFW on one computer, but I can only load one instance. Is this by design?
I'm thinking of running - say 2 instances, each backing up a separate physical disk to speed up the process.
Is this possible?
Running multiple instances of IFW
Re: Running multiple instances of IFW
I would expect running two instances of IfW at the same time to at least double the backup time (assuming same amount being backed up in each case). I do not think there is anything to be saved at all.
-
- Posts: 3628
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 10:37 pm
Re: Running multiple instances of IFW
one instance at a time due to the phylock/vss usage and amount of non-pooled
memory needed for phylock.
"TAC109" wrote in message news:2971@public.image...
I am trying to run multiple instances of IFW on one computer, but I can only
load one instance. Is this by design?
I'm thinking of running - say 2 instances, each backing up a separate
physical disk to speed up the process.
Is this possible?
memory needed for phylock.
"TAC109" wrote in message news:2971@public.image...
I am trying to run multiple instances of IFW on one computer, but I can only
load one instance. Is this by design?
I'm thinking of running - say 2 instances, each backing up a separate
physical disk to speed up the process.
Is this possible?
Re: Running multiple instances of IFW
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 00:57:24 PDT, DrTeeth wrote:
>I would expect running two instances of IfW at the same time to at least double the backup time (assuming same amount being backed up in each case). I do not think there is anything to be saved at all.
>
The simple scenario I envisaged involved backing up a 2 physical hard
disk system to a third drive (external or internal). The bottleneck
for parallel processing would be reading/writing the third drive.
Two full backups in parallel may or may not finish sooner than if done
in series.
However differential backups using /hash files should really scream
along, approaching half the time of running the same backups in
series, as there would be much lower I/O to the third drive in this
case (read the small hash files, write the small diff images).
Even more time savings if backing up more than 2 physical disks!
>I would expect running two instances of IfW at the same time to at least double the backup time (assuming same amount being backed up in each case). I do not think there is anything to be saved at all.
>
The simple scenario I envisaged involved backing up a 2 physical hard
disk system to a third drive (external or internal). The bottleneck
for parallel processing would be reading/writing the third drive.
Two full backups in parallel may or may not finish sooner than if done
in series.
However differential backups using /hash files should really scream
along, approaching half the time of running the same backups in
series, as there would be much lower I/O to the third drive in this
case (read the small hash files, write the small diff images).
Even more time savings if backing up more than 2 physical disks!
Re: Running multiple instances of IFW
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:34:20 PDT, just as I was about to take a herb,
Tom Cole disturbed my reverie and
wrote:
>However differential backups using /hash files should really scream
>along, approaching half the time of running the same backups in
>series, as there would be much lower I/O to the third drive in this
>case (read the small hash files, write the small diff images).
I beg to differ. There will be the SAME I/O to the third drive, but
for a shorter time. The I/O per-unit-time will be exactly the same.
Are you posting under two IDs? Not fair when I am on my third bottle
of Guinness Export Stout - very difficult to find in the UK, but I
struck lucky.
--
Cheers
DrT
______________________________
We may not be able to prevent the stormy times in
our lives; but we can always choose to dance
in the puddles (Jewish proverb).
Tom Cole disturbed my reverie and
wrote:
>However differential backups using /hash files should really scream
>along, approaching half the time of running the same backups in
>series, as there would be much lower I/O to the third drive in this
>case (read the small hash files, write the small diff images).
I beg to differ. There will be the SAME I/O to the third drive, but
for a shorter time. The I/O per-unit-time will be exactly the same.
Are you posting under two IDs? Not fair when I am on my third bottle
of Guinness Export Stout - very difficult to find in the UK, but I
struck lucky.
--
Cheers
DrT
______________________________
We may not be able to prevent the stormy times in
our lives; but we can always choose to dance
in the puddles (Jewish proverb).
Re: Running multiple instances of IFW
Thanks
Is there any technical reason to stop multiple copies of IFL running
successfully in parallel? Same for IFD?
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:19:48 PDT, "TeraByte Support"
wrote:
>one instance at a time due to the phylock/vss usage and amount of non-pooled
>memory needed for phylock.
>
>"TAC109" wrote in message news:2971@public.image...
>
>I am trying to run multiple instances of IFW on one computer, but I can only
>load one instance. Is this by design?
>I'm thinking of running - say 2 instances, each backing up a separate
>physical disk to speed up the process.
>Is this possible?
>
Is there any technical reason to stop multiple copies of IFL running
successfully in parallel? Same for IFD?
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:19:48 PDT, "TeraByte Support"
wrote:
>one instance at a time due to the phylock/vss usage and amount of non-pooled
>memory needed for phylock.
>
>"TAC109" wrote in message news:2971@public.image...
>
>I am trying to run multiple instances of IFW on one computer, but I can only
>load one instance. Is this by design?
>I'm thinking of running - say 2 instances, each backing up a separate
>physical disk to speed up the process.
>Is this possible?
>
Re: Running multiple instances of IFW
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:41:07 PDT, DrTeeth
wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:34:20 PDT, just as I was about to take a herb,
>Tom Cole
>
> disturbed my reverie and
>wrote:
>
>>However differential backups using /hash files should really scream
>>along, approaching half the time of running the same backups in
>>series, as there would be much lower I/O to the third drive in this
>>case (read the small hash files, write the small diff images).
>
>I beg to differ. There will be the SAME I/O to the third drive, but
>for a shorter time. The I/O per-unit-time will be exactly the same.
>
I don't follow you. Perhaps you'll revise your opinion in the morning.
>Are you posting under two IDs? Not fair when I am on my third bottle
>of Guinness Export Stout - very difficult to find in the UK, but I
>struck lucky.
I'm posting the follow-ups from my NNTP news reader (one ID), but
wrote the original post using the on-line web forum (different ID).
wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:34:20 PDT, just as I was about to take a herb,
>Tom Cole
>
> disturbed my reverie and
>wrote:
>
>>However differential backups using /hash files should really scream
>>along, approaching half the time of running the same backups in
>>series, as there would be much lower I/O to the third drive in this
>>case (read the small hash files, write the small diff images).
>
>I beg to differ. There will be the SAME I/O to the third drive, but
>for a shorter time. The I/O per-unit-time will be exactly the same.
>
I don't follow you. Perhaps you'll revise your opinion in the morning.
>Are you posting under two IDs? Not fair when I am on my third bottle
>of Guinness Export Stout - very difficult to find in the UK, but I
>struck lucky.
I'm posting the follow-ups from my NNTP news reader (one ID), but
wrote the original post using the on-line web forum (different ID).
-
- Posts: 3628
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 10:37 pm
Re: Running multiple instances of IFW
no, other than potential thrashing. IFD you can only run at one time unless
you have some type of multi-dos envrionment.
"Tom Cole" wrote in message news:2988@public.image...
Thanks
Is there any technical reason to stop multiple copies of IFL running
successfully in parallel? Same for IFD?
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:19:48 PDT, "TeraByte Support"
wrote:
>one instance at a time due to the phylock/vss usage and amount of
>non-pooled
>memory needed for phylock.
>
>"TAC109" wrote in message news:2971@public.image...
>
>I am trying to run multiple instances of IFW on one computer, but I can
>only
>load one instance. Is this by design?
>I'm thinking of running - say 2 instances, each backing up a separate
>physical disk to speed up the process.
>Is this possible?
>
you have some type of multi-dos envrionment.
"Tom Cole" wrote in message news:2988@public.image...
Thanks
Is there any technical reason to stop multiple copies of IFL running
successfully in parallel? Same for IFD?
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:19:48 PDT, "TeraByte Support"
wrote:
>one instance at a time due to the phylock/vss usage and amount of
>non-pooled
>memory needed for phylock.
>
>"TAC109" wrote in message news:2971@public.image...
>
>I am trying to run multiple instances of IFW on one computer, but I can
>only
>load one instance. Is this by design?
>I'm thinking of running - say 2 instances, each backing up a separate
>physical disk to speed up the process.
>Is this possible?
>
Re: Running multiple instances of IFW
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:22:36 PDT, just as I was about to take a herb,
Tom Cole disturbed my reverie and
wrote:
>I don't follow you. Perhaps you'll revise your opinion in the morning.
Not at all. Just to clarify, are you saying that running two instances
in parallel will produce more of a benefit if the amount of data being
backed up is smaller? That what it seems like to me.
--
Cheers
DrT
______________________________
We may not be able to prevent the stormy times in
our lives; but we can always choose to dance
in the puddles (Jewish proverb).
Tom Cole disturbed my reverie and
wrote:
>I don't follow you. Perhaps you'll revise your opinion in the morning.
Not at all. Just to clarify, are you saying that running two instances
in parallel will produce more of a benefit if the amount of data being
backed up is smaller? That what it seems like to me.
--
Cheers
DrT
______________________________
We may not be able to prevent the stormy times in
our lives; but we can always choose to dance
in the puddles (Jewish proverb).
-
- Posts: 305
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:22 pm
Re: Running multiple instances of IFW
TAC109 wrote:
> Thanks
>
> Is there any technical reason to stop multiple copies of IFL running
> successfully in parallel? Same for IFD?
There's an important clarification when running multiple instances of IFL:
If using File (Direct) to create 2 (or more) images on the same target partition, the image files will be corrupted. If using File (Direct), each image should be created on a separate partition. If using File (OS), there's no problem creating more than one image at a time on a mounted share/partition.
> Thanks
>
> Is there any technical reason to stop multiple copies of IFL running
> successfully in parallel? Same for IFD?
There's an important clarification when running multiple instances of IFL:
If using File (Direct) to create 2 (or more) images on the same target partition, the image files will be corrupted. If using File (Direct), each image should be created on a separate partition. If using File (OS), there's no problem creating more than one image at a time on a mounted share/partition.