Is it better to group your vm's into replication cycles, then create a single job for that goup, or is it better to have each vm replicate against its own job?
eg
You want to backup the following servers against the schedules.
Sql - 6 hours
web - 6 hours
FTP - 12 hours
nfs - 12 hours
should you group them into 2 jobs, one for sql/web, and one for ftp/nfs or make 4 jobs?
Thanks
-
- Novice
- Posts: 6
- Liked: never
- Joined: May 25, 2011 3:22 pm
- Full Name: JRoesner
- Location: London, Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
-
- VP, Product Management
- Posts: 27377
- Liked: 2800 times
- Joined: Mar 30, 2009 9:13 am
- Full Name: Vitaliy Safarov
- Contact:
Re: Replicate - 1 big job, or 20 small jobs
Given the specifics of your scenario (different replication schedule and the number of VMs to replicate), I would go with two VMs per job. In this case you would get the desired flexibility in scheduling and more granular control which cannot be achieved while having a single job for all VMs.
-
- Novice
- Posts: 6
- Liked: never
- Joined: May 25, 2011 3:22 pm
- Full Name: JRoesner
- Location: London, Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Replicate - 1 big job, or 20 small jobs
Well, in actuality, there are about 30 vms and about 4 different ranges. But I think the principal holds true.
-
- VP, Product Management
- Posts: 27377
- Liked: 2800 times
- Joined: Mar 30, 2009 9:13 am
- Full Name: Vitaliy Safarov
- Contact:
Re: Replicate - 1 big job, or 20 small jobs
Yes, If I were you I would group your production VMs into multiple replication jobs according to VMs Tier status/desired job schedule etc.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Semrush [Bot] and 72 guests