- 1. LTO slow restore? (score: 1)
- Author: Joni Moyer <joni.moyer AT HIGHMARK DOT COM>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 12:46:31 -0400
- Hello, I am trying to understand why LTO is so much slower than 9840B or 9940A when restoring a file? I know that it takes longer to load the tape and the performance is slightly slower, but what is
- /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2002-08/msg00849.html (10,994 bytes)
- 2. Re: LTO slow restore? (score: 1)
- Author: Remco Post <r.post AT SARA DOT NL>
- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:45:26 +0200
- Hi, since the LTO tapes contain much more data, finding your data on a tape takes much longer than on a tape that is 'shorter'. Apart from that espacially the 9840 tapes are optimized for fast seeks,
- /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2002-08/msg00904.html (12,152 bytes)
- 3. Re: LTO slow restore? (score: 1)
- Author: Zlatko Krastev/ACIT <acit AT ATTGLOBAL DOT NET>
- Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:21:58 +0300
- LTO is much slower when it becomes to single/small files compared to both 3590x and 9x40 drives. Start/stop times and acceleration of 3590/9x40 are much better than for DLT/LTO. The latter have to re
- /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2002-08/msg01050.html (13,176 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu