Multiple backup jobs in IFL
Multiple backup jobs in IFL
Can IFL do multiple jobs without building a separate script? If so, must these jobs be done successively, or can it multitask two jobs simultaneously working from one host? Can it be set up to turn off the host after completion of the LAST job only? If it is capable of such multitasking, can it do so with a network job as well? Thanks.
-
TeraByte Support(TP)
- Posts: 305
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:22 pm
Re: Multiple backup jobs in IFL
P19 wrote:
> Can IFL do multiple jobs without building a separate script? If so, must
> these jobs be done successively, or can it multitask two jobs
> simultaneously working from one host? Can it be set up to turn off the host
> after completion of the LAST job only? If it is capable of such
> multitasking, can it do so with a network job as well? Thanks.
As far as turning off the host (shutting down) after the last of two or more concurrent image operations is complete, IFL itself would not be aware that more than one is running, and would shut down after the first one completes (assuming all are set to shut down the system). That situation could probably be handled with script logic, although I have never tried this myself.
IFL itself wouldn't prevent you from running 2 or more image operations at the same time. Image operations are both RAM and disk intensive, so I'm not sure how much would be gained. This is not something I have worked with much. Possibly, someone who has can add something more.
> Can IFL do multiple jobs without building a separate script? If so, must
> these jobs be done successively, or can it multitask two jobs
> simultaneously working from one host? Can it be set up to turn off the host
> after completion of the LAST job only? If it is capable of such
> multitasking, can it do so with a network job as well? Thanks.
As far as turning off the host (shutting down) after the last of two or more concurrent image operations is complete, IFL itself would not be aware that more than one is running, and would shut down after the first one completes (assuming all are set to shut down the system). That situation could probably be handled with script logic, although I have never tried this myself.
IFL itself wouldn't prevent you from running 2 or more image operations at the same time. Image operations are both RAM and disk intensive, so I'm not sure how much would be gained. This is not something I have worked with much. Possibly, someone who has can add something more.
Re: Multiple backup jobs in IFL
> "IFL itself wouldn't prevent you from running 2 or more image operations at the same time."
Hmm.. Are you saying I can just let one job start up, and then turn around and go back to the main menu and procede with another? I suppose if expect them to run simultaneously, I should already have a sense of which one would last longer, or else I could look at the estimated time from IFL Sounds like a winner to me, and I think it's time for giving it a try on some smaller jobs just to see how it goes. Thanks, again, Tom.
Hmm.. Are you saying I can just let one job start up, and then turn around and go back to the main menu and procede with another? I suppose if expect them to run simultaneously, I should already have a sense of which one would last longer, or else I could look at the estimated time from IFL Sounds like a winner to me, and I think it's time for giving it a try on some smaller jobs just to see how it goes. Thanks, again, Tom.
Re: Multiple backup jobs in IFL
On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 12:46:42 PDT, TeraByte Support(TP) wrote:
>P19 wrote:
>> Can IFL do multiple jobs without building a separate script? If so, must
>> these jobs be done successively, or can it multitask two jobs
>> simultaneously working from one host? Can it be set up to turn off the host
>> after completion of the LAST job only? If it is capable of such
>> multitasking, can it do so with a network job as well? Thanks.
>
>As far as turning off the host (shutting down) after the last of two or more concurrent image operations is complete, IFL itself would not be aware that more than one is running, and would shut down after the first one completes (assuming all are set to shut down the system). That situation could probably be handled with script logic, although I have never tried this myself.
>
>IFL itself wouldn't prevent you from running 2 or more image operations at the same time. Image operations are both RAM and disk intensive, so I'm not sure how much would be gained. This is not something I have worked with much. Possibly, someone who has can add something more.
>
I (as TAC109) asked a similar question in August 2012 and got the
following answer from TeraByte Support (question and answer quoted):-
|Post by TeraByte Support(TP) » Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:24 am
|
|TAC109 wrote:
|> Is there any technical reason to stop multiple copies of IFL running
|> successfully in parallel?
|
|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.
|
|Tom Pfeifer
|TeraByte Support
|TeraByte Support(TP) Posts: 229Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:22 am
>P19 wrote:
>> Can IFL do multiple jobs without building a separate script? If so, must
>> these jobs be done successively, or can it multitask two jobs
>> simultaneously working from one host? Can it be set up to turn off the host
>> after completion of the LAST job only? If it is capable of such
>> multitasking, can it do so with a network job as well? Thanks.
>
>As far as turning off the host (shutting down) after the last of two or more concurrent image operations is complete, IFL itself would not be aware that more than one is running, and would shut down after the first one completes (assuming all are set to shut down the system). That situation could probably be handled with script logic, although I have never tried this myself.
>
>IFL itself wouldn't prevent you from running 2 or more image operations at the same time. Image operations are both RAM and disk intensive, so I'm not sure how much would be gained. This is not something I have worked with much. Possibly, someone who has can add something more.
>
I (as TAC109) asked a similar question in August 2012 and got the
following answer from TeraByte Support (question and answer quoted):-
|Post by TeraByte Support(TP) » Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:24 am
|
|TAC109 wrote:
|> Is there any technical reason to stop multiple copies of IFL running
|> successfully in parallel?
|
|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.
|
|Tom Pfeifer
|TeraByte Support
|TeraByte Support(TP) Posts: 229Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:22 am
-
TeraByte Support(TP)
- Posts: 305
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:22 pm
Re: Multiple backup jobs in IFL
TAC109 wrote:
> I (as TAC109) asked a similar question in August 2012 and got the
> following answer from TeraByte Support (question and answer quoted):-
>
> |Post by TeraByte Support(TP) » Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:24 am
> |
> |TAC109 wrote:
> |> Is there any technical reason to stop multiple copies of IFL running
> |> successfully in parallel?
> |
> |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.
> |
> |Tom Pfeifer
> |TeraByte Support
> |TeraByte Support(TP) Posts: 229Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:22 am
Thanks very much for that correction.
> I (as TAC109) asked a similar question in August 2012 and got the
> following answer from TeraByte Support (question and answer quoted):-
>
> |Post by TeraByte Support(TP) » Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:24 am
> |
> |TAC109 wrote:
> |> Is there any technical reason to stop multiple copies of IFL running
> |> successfully in parallel?
> |
> |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.
> |
> |Tom Pfeifer
> |TeraByte Support
> |TeraByte Support(TP) Posts: 229Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:22 am
Thanks very much for that correction.
Re: Multiple backup jobs in IFL
> "IFL itself wouldn't prevent you from running 2 or more image operations at the same time."
>> Hmm.. Are you saying I can just let one job start up, and then turn around and go back to the main menu and procede with another?
When I tried to initiate a second instance of IFL while one was running already, by clicking on the IFL icon on far left side of taskbar along the top of IFL desktop, nothing appears. Even when I went to desktop 2 and clicked its "Image for Linux" icon, still nothing appeared. It seems as if only one instance is allowed. Am I missing something, or is there supposed to be another way to make it happen?
>> Hmm.. Are you saying I can just let one job start up, and then turn around and go back to the main menu and procede with another?
When I tried to initiate a second instance of IFL while one was running already, by clicking on the IFL icon on far left side of taskbar along the top of IFL desktop, nothing appears. Even when I went to desktop 2 and clicked its "Image for Linux" icon, still nothing appeared. It seems as if only one instance is allowed. Am I missing something, or is there supposed to be another way to make it happen?
-
TeraByte Support(TP)
- Posts: 305
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:22 pm
Re: Multiple backup jobs in IFL
P19 wrote:
> > "IFL itself wouldn't prevent you from running 2 or more image operations at
> the same time."
>
> >> Hmm.. Are you saying I can just let one job start up, and then turn around
> and go back to the main menu and procede with another?
>
> When I tried to initiate a second instance of IFL while one was running already, by
> clicking on the IFL icon on far left side of taskbar along the top of IFL desktop,
> nothing appears. Even when I went to desktop 2 and clicked its "Image for
> Linux" icon, still nothing appeared. It seems as if only one instance is
> allowed. Am I missing something, or is there supposed to be another way to make it
> happen?
After verifying that it works here, I'm wondering if it's unable to launch the 2nd instance due to the resource intensiveness of IFL image operations (CPU, RAM, disk I/O). Particularly if you're doing this on an older system, or in a VM. It may not be practical to do this on some systems. Have you tried starting both IFL instances prior to starting the image operations?
> > "IFL itself wouldn't prevent you from running 2 or more image operations at
> the same time."
>
> >> Hmm.. Are you saying I can just let one job start up, and then turn around
> and go back to the main menu and procede with another?
>
> When I tried to initiate a second instance of IFL while one was running already, by
> clicking on the IFL icon on far left side of taskbar along the top of IFL desktop,
> nothing appears. Even when I went to desktop 2 and clicked its "Image for
> Linux" icon, still nothing appeared. It seems as if only one instance is
> allowed. Am I missing something, or is there supposed to be another way to make it
> happen?
After verifying that it works here, I'm wondering if it's unable to launch the 2nd instance due to the resource intensiveness of IFL image operations (CPU, RAM, disk I/O). Particularly if you're doing this on an older system, or in a VM. It may not be practical to do this on some systems. Have you tried starting both IFL instances prior to starting the image operations?
Re: Multiple backup jobs in IFL
Hi, Tom.
>"Have you tried starting both IFL instances prior to starting the image operations?"
Good call! I hadn't until now. Yes, it appears that insufficient amount of resources on the machine was causing the problem because I can start two instances before actually initiating one of the jobs. Okay, no problem. This was an older machine I was backing up at the time, and I wanted to test out this procedure. I will redo the test from a more powerful machine now that I see how it works. It is the more powerful one where I intend to make use of multiple backups anyway, if possible.
It will be important for me to bear in mind the information from TAC109's post: "If using File (OS),
> there's no problem...". This is not something I want to do often, but there are times when making two separate jobs would be convenient.
>"Have you tried starting both IFL instances prior to starting the image operations?"
Good call! I hadn't until now. Yes, it appears that insufficient amount of resources on the machine was causing the problem because I can start two instances before actually initiating one of the jobs. Okay, no problem. This was an older machine I was backing up at the time, and I wanted to test out this procedure. I will redo the test from a more powerful machine now that I see how it works. It is the more powerful one where I intend to make use of multiple backups anyway, if possible.
It will be important for me to bear in mind the information from TAC109's post: "If using File (OS),
> there's no problem...". This is not something I want to do often, but there are times when making two separate jobs would be convenient.