Article View: comp.sys.next.sysadmin
Article #2169Re: Dump/restore problem with DAT-drive (Major hint!!!)
From: Ian Jefferson
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:52
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:52
19 lines
1428 bytes
1428 bytes
I'm suprised no one mentioned dd in this discussion (or I missed it). I have used dump/restore piped through dd for some time specifying ibs and obs as 51200. If you create seperate entries as in ibs=51200 obs=51200 as opposed to bs=51200 you actually get noticable performance improvment. (I'm not sure about NeXT, but it feels faster) I did a recent timeing, on a NST to a DAT with tar, compress, and dd and it took about 40Minutes to back up about 300 Mb. I thought this was pretty good for gnutar. I was lead to believe that large block sizes were much more efficient on helical scan tape devices like DAT and EXABYTE. In addition running through dd seems to fix up any block size problems that occur. Hope this helps -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ian Jefferson ijeff@ccs.carleton.ca No NeXT mail please! ijeff@computeractive.on.ca NeXT mail please!
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<ijeff.724701147@cunews>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!utcsri!torn!nott!cunews!ijeffReferences:
<1992Dec9.101922.618@nexcom.hanse.de> <1gkvvfINN66@menudo.uh.edu> <MAX.92Dec16102112@Kolmogorov.gac.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.sysadmin Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!utcsri!torn!nott!cunews!ijeff From: ijeff@hank.carleton.ca (Ian Jefferson) Subject: Re: Dump/restore problem with DAT-drive (Major hint!!!) Message-ID: <ijeff.724701147@cunews> Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator) Organization: Carleton University References: <1992Dec9.101922.618@nexcom.hanse.de> <1gkvvfINN66@menudo.uh.edu> <MAX.92Dec16102112@Kolmogorov.gac.edu> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:52:27 GMT Lines: 21