John Drescher:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:12 AM, Dietz Pröpper <dietz AT rotfl.franken DOT 
> de> 
wrote:
> > John Drescher:
> >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Mike Hanby <mhanby AT uab DOT edu> wrote:
> >> > Howdy,
> >> > 
> >> > I'm curious whether others with the PV-124T with LTO4 are using
> >> > hardware or software compression.
> >> > 
> >> > I am testing a new Bacula deployment with one of these autoloaders
> >> > / drives and haven't found a good suggestion as to which type of
> >> > compression to go with.
> >> 
> >> Never use software compression on an LTO drive. Hardware compression
> >> much faster.
> > 
> > I get around 100mb/s with gzip -1 ;-).
> 
> That is still slower than a LTO4 drive.

Your clients can spool faster?

> It would also be a low compression rate.

gzip -5 yields around 70 MB/s.

> Also I would bet if you had client machines not all
> of them could do 100MB/s..

The test machine is a mobile [email protected]. In modern terms more the 
lower end on the performance scale, at least for single threaded stuff.

But my main point against hardware compression always was the data blurring 
on high entropy input - which does not hold for lto.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by 

Make an app they can't live without
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev 
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users