Thanks for all the input. I've made some changes and was able to get a
bit more throughput. I'll will continue to *tweak* the settings and
test. Thanks again Kern for a great product.
Steven Hammond
On 6/2/2017 8:28 AM, Kern Sibbald wrote:
Hello,
See below ...
On 06/02/2017 01:44 PM,
Hello,
See below ...
On 06/02/2017 01:44 PM, Richard Fox wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 01:24:46PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
I don't seem to have the original post of Richard Fox, so could you please
specify what "this directive" is in the sentence:
Otherwise, this advice is a little
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 01:24:46PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> I don't seem to have the original post of Richard Fox, so could you please
> specify what "this directive" is in the sentence:
>
> Otherwise, this advice is a little contradictory to the documentation which
> states "On most mod
For most people tape compression is the way to go. In your particular
case you might want to use Client compression, but if you do, it would
be better to disable compression on the tape drive. Doing so will
probably improve your throughput.
Best regards,
Kern
On 06/01/2017 04:02 PM, Stev
Hello Steven,
I recommend setting the Minimum Block Size to 0 (the default).
For LTO-5 I recommend using Maximum File Size = 5 GB
Best regards,
Kern
On 06/01/2017 03:58 PM, Steven Hammond wrote:
Kern,
Ok, thanks. I am running concurrent jobs (10) and spooling the
data/attributes. I wi
I don't seem to have the original post of Richard Fox, so could you
please specify what "this directive" is in the sentence:
Otherwise, this advice is a little contradictory to the documentation which states
"On most modern tape drives, you will not need to specify this directive.
Best regards
On 01/06/17 15:02, Steven Hammond wrote:
Oh, should I do hardware compression or software compression? Reason I
ask, I tried just hardware but didn't seem to get much out of the tape
(1.7TB). However, with client side compression, my file server was
compressed nearly 80+%. I assume the LTO-5
Oh, should I do hardware compression or software compression? Reason I
ask, I tried just hardware but didn't seem to get much out of the tape
(1.7TB). However, with client side compression, my file server was
compressed nearly 80+%. I assume the LTO-5 is set to hardware
compression by default
Kern,
Ok, thanks. I am running concurrent jobs (10) and spooling the
data/attributes. I will try 512K. I assume I will need to set both the
MINIMUM BLOCK SIZE and MAXIMUM BLOCK SIZE. Or is just setting the
MAXIMUM BLOCK SIZE sufficient? Also, what would you recommend for a
MAXIMUM FILE S
Cejka Rudolf wrote (2017/06/01):
> It is too low for LTO-5. It is at the lower limit before tape
> shoe shining, problably with some tape stops already here.
> The real limit is 47 MB/s for HP and 40 MB/s for IBM, but no
> guarantee it is correct.
Small clarification about this: Speeds 47 MB/s or
Richard Fox wrote (2017/06/01):
> Otherwise, this advice is a little contradictory to the documentation which
> states "On most modern tape drives, you will not need to specify this
> directive.".
Given that Linux with LTO-X tape drive is probably a majority system here (not
counting
configura
On 31/05/2017 21:43, Steven Hammond wrote:
I've been reading through some of the articles about settings for my
HP LTO-5 drive. I have a question concerning FIXED vs VARIABLE block
size.
1. Is it safe (Bacula 7.XX) to set the block size to something other
than 64K?
Yes. However, once you ha
Steven Hammond wrote (2017/05/31):
> 1. Is it safe (Bacula 7.XX) to set the block size to something other
> than 64K?
You have to try it, but it should be safe in Linux. Write data with
bigger blocks and read them back with source comparison. btape should
do the job too.
> 2. Does increasing the
I've been reading through some of the articles about settings for my HP
LTO-5 drive. I have a question concerning FIXED vs VARIABLE block size.
1. Is it safe (Bacula 7.XX) to set the block size to something other
than 64K?
2. Does increasing the block size increase the throughput? (2 x 3.6Ghz
14 matches
Mail list logo
