Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 17:08:37 -0700 From: "Kenneth D. Merry" <ken@kdm.org> To: Joerg Micheel <joerg@cs.waikato.ac.nz> Cc: freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: hardware Message-ID: <20000112170836.B93083@panzer.kdm.org> In-Reply-To: <20000113125237.J5228@cs.waikato.ac.nz>; from joerg@cs.waikato.ac.nz on Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 12:52:37PM %2B1300 References: <387D0354.63159B8@ddsecurity.com.br> <72218.947717759@verdi.nethelp.no> <20000113124314.I5228@cs.waikato.ac.nz> <20000113125237.J5228@cs.waikato.ac.nz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 12:52:37 +1300, Joerg Micheel wrote: > Regarding the Barracuda ST150176LW ... > > I'd like to comment that the real problem with this drive is rather on > the backup side. I'm using a DDS4 drive (40GB compressed, 20GB raw) and > I get about 10GB / hour backup performance. Both the disk and the tape > drive are on the same SCSI channel. The disk is almost full, lots of > gzip'ed data on it. It took me an estimated 8 hours and 3 DDS4 tapes for > the complete dump 0. dump is notoriously slow. I've got a number of systems that back up onto a central AIT drive at work. We're pushing close to 50G per night onto one AIT tape (maximum we've gotten is 55GB on a 170m AIT-1 tape), and it takes 9.5-10 hours to do the backup. The speed isn't limited by the network (switched 100BaseT) or the drive (AIT drives can handle a good bit more than the 1.4MB/sec or so we're throwing at it.) The limiting factor is dump. If a file-based backup is acceptable, you could probably get a lot better performance by going through the filesystem. > Time for LTO to show up. What's LTO? Ken -- Kenneth Merry ken@kdm.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000112170836.B93083>