Hi,
Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
Finally got around to messing around with bacula again...
> The manual says that nnn being the same number for both settings
> means "fixed" blocksize.
>
> As I understand it, your solutions should be to just set the
> "Minimum Block Size" so you get a good perfroman
Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
> * Chris Howells schrieb am 10.09.07 um 16:47 Uhr:
>
>> Arno Lehmann wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>>
>>> I'd suggest to do some tests with Bacula, and after you found your
>>> best settings, clearly mark all tapes with their respective block sizes.
>>>
* Chris Howells schrieb am 10.09.07 um 16:47 Uhr:
> Arno Lehmann wrote:
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> > I'd suggest to do some tests with Bacula, and after you found your
> > best settings, clearly mark all tapes with their respective block sizes.
>
> Will do.
>
> Are you basically suggesting
Arno Lehmann wrote:
Thanks for your reply.
> I'd suggest to do some tests with Bacula, and after you found your
> best settings, clearly mark all tapes with their respective block sizes.
Will do.
Are you basically suggesting that I should use the following sd directives:
Minimum Block Size =
Hi,
10.09.2007 16:21,, Chris Howells wrote::
> Hi,
>
> I am currently struggling to get any kind of reasonable performance out
> of Bacula on my LTO 4 tape size. I have done a considerable of testing
> and benchmarking, and my hunch is that bacula's block size of 64512
> bytes is causing the p
Hi,
I am currently struggling to get any kind of reasonable performance out
of Bacula on my LTO 4 tape size. I have done a considerable of testing
and benchmarking, and my hunch is that bacula's block size of 64512
bytes is causing the performance problems.
To test the drive, I used tar, with
