On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 03:21:12PM +0100, Tom Brown wrote:
> > > Possibly rerun amtapetype (as Paul suggested) with an reasonable
> estimate
> > so
> > > that it writes 100x fewer separate files and writes much larger files
> that
> > > stream for a longer time at full write speed.
> > >
> > > From amanda's perspective it doesn't matter.  The speed parameter is
> > > printed for informational purposes (your info), amanda does not use it.
> 
>  with a 100 gig estimate
> 
>  Estimated time to write 2 * 102400 Mbyte: 3112 sec = 0 h 51 min
> wrote 3211264 32Kb blocks in 98 files in 7777 seconds (short write)
> wrote 3227648 32Kb blocks in 197 files in 8206 seconds (short write)
> define tapetype unknown-tapetype {
>     comment "just produced by tapetype prog (hardware compression on)"
>     length 100608 mbytes
>     filemark 0 kbytes
>     speed 12899 kps
> }
> 

Fuji's documentation for tapes shows two IBM models, the rated
speeds for the models are 7.5 and 15 MB/s.

Your 12.9 seems reasonable.  Far cry from the previous 2.9 :)

Is the comment correct, was HW compression ON?  Should not have been.
A tapetype report should show the "native" capacity.


-- 
Jon H. LaBadie                  jon AT jgcomp DOT com
 JG Computing
 4455 Province Line Road        (609) 252-0159
 Princeton, NJ  08540-4322      (609) 683-7220 (fax)