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,even unload with
the tape set to the middle, so the average length of tape that has to
bee wound is cut in half. These high end drives have very little contact
between drive and tape (none), thus allowing for much greater
tape-speeds.

On dinsdag, augustus 20, 2002, at 06:46 , Joni Moyer wrote:

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 the technical reason for
LTO having slow restores for files and databases?  Does anyone have any
statistics/numbers that I might be able to go by?  Right now we have
3590's
and we are getting about 25 GB/HR on the mainframe.  We are going to be
moving TSM to a SUN/Solaris server which will be put on the SAN.
Mainly I
am trying to understand what goes on when a server tries to restore a
file/database from an LTO tape and how the 9840B or 9940A is better?
Thanks in advance for any input!!!!

Joni Moyer
Associate Systems Programmer
joni.moyer AT highmark DOT com
(717)975-8338

---
Met vriendelijke groeten,

Remco Post

SARA - Stichting Academisch Rekencentrum Amsterdam    http://www.sara.nl
High Performance Computing  Tel. +31 20 592 8008    Fax. +31 20 668 3167

"I really didn't foresee the Internet. But then, neither did the computer
industry. Not that that tells us very much of course - the computer
industry
didn't even foresee that the century was going to end." -- Douglas Adams