Now why would there be an increase in the data transfer rate going
direct to tape?  That seems counter-intuitive.  Was migration competing
with the backup?

Ron Clendenny  <rdclendenny AT cal.ue DOT com>
Callaway Nuclear Power Plant
Fulton, Missouri

"The difference between a madman and me is that I am not mad" - Salvador
Dali

>-----Original Message-----
>From:  Mark Rizzo [SMTP:RizzoM AT MAIL.DEC DOT COM]
>Sent:  Thursday, March 27, 1997 1:04 PM
>To:    ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>Subject:       Re: tape storage vs. disk storage
>
>Michael,
>
>You can go directly to your tape drive but you must realize, your
>backups/archives will backup (queue) if you don't have enough tape
>drives.
>While a disk backup pool can handle many backups at once, a direct
>to tape backup must wait it's turn. One thing we did discover regarding
>direct to tape backup, was a tremendous increase in data transfer rate.
>Going to our disk pool we averaged 700kb/sec. But when we directed the
>data to our tape pool, we got 3Mb/sec..(3590 tape drives)
>
>Mark Rizzo
>DoD
>
>
>>> From:         Michael Castillo[SMTP:mcastill AT UTEP DOT EDU]
>>> Sent:         Tuesday, March 25, 1997 11:37 AM
>>> To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>>> Subject:      tape storage vs. disk storage
>>>
>>>         Does anyone out there just dump to tape only and not store
>>> data on
>>> disk(ex.3390,3380)? Can this be done?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael A.Castillo
>>> Software Systems Specialist
>>> Ph:747-5256
>>> Fax:747-5067
>>> Beeper :546-3756
>>> E-Mail: mcastill AT utep DOT edu
>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
>>> Version: 2.6.2
>>>
>>> mQCNAzKCcMoAAAEEALoY5olyDXeMDrfnWs3uLopL21RZTcWvoKkPMK4mEiJvP245
>>> FiLGQHvJ8+C1Shdf5IZXcnFrl7GwOJGZaLnpl06DCTAyRsfyZFjHBaKyMDn0Yq9Z
>>> ckIF3jFtSzWJtD9Fafu+5Rxxuvup9q5GJT620wj35dFdQp5Fs4OYzdgV7bM9AAUT
>>> tAhtY2FzdGlsbA==
>>> =xcl7
>>> -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
>>>
>>