On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 09:10:35PM -0500, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 03:49:32PM -0800, John Oliver wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 06:14:37PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > 
> > > Throw in that marketing is usually a bit optimistic in saying its a 
> > > 20 gigger without compression, and that always needs a fudge factor 
> > > when actually estimating, and it likely this will happen.
> > 
> > But fudging by 100%?  I don't buy that... :-)
> 
> You don't have to.  Gene was only talking about a few percent.

No... if my tape is theoretically capable of 20GB uncompressed and 40GB
compressed, and after compression amanda can only fit 20GB on it, that
would hypothetically demonstrate a 10GB un-compressed capacity.  Or,
half of what it's actually doing.  I do not believe Quantum sells a
10/20 tape drive as a 20/40  I'm sure there *is* some fudging going on,
but not, like I said, 100%.  I'm apparently "loosing" about half of the
capacity of my tapes, and I'm puzzled why I'm the only one who sees a
problem with that... :-)

Hopefully, this issue will be resolved in a couple of weeks when I get a
DLT7000 library in here.  But I would like to understand the basic issue
here... I don't want to be limited to 35GB with a unit that should be
able to approach 70.

-- 
John Oliver, CCNA                            http://www.john-oliver.net/
Linux/UNIX/network consulting         http://www.john-oliver.net/resume/
***               sendmail, Apache, ftp, DNS, spam filtering         ***
****                Colocation, T1s, web/email/ftp hosting          ****