TeraByte Unlimited

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?

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.

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?

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!

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).

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?
>

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).

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?
>

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).

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.