Re: [ADSM-L] Remote tape drives
2008-11-19 11:38:10
-----Allen S. Rout wrote: -----
>I've whined about this from time to time... I've had tapes 10% full
>get 60% reclaimable and then they get copied. I see no reason to
>reclaim a filling tape unless you figure you can get back at least
>
> (reclaimpercent * max(estcapacity,actualcap))
>
>bytes. In other words, -never- waste your effort trying to copy a
>tape that's only 1/3 full.
Reclaiming a full volume that was 60% reclaimable would create a
volume with 100% of its capacity available for future writes, at
the cost of using 40% of a volume to relocate the surviving
contents. This is a net gain of 60% of a volume available for
future writes.
The reclamation you describe still creates a volume with 100% of
its capacity available for future writes, at the cost of writing
off the 30% of the volume that was available for future writes and
using 10% of another volume to relocate the contents. This
results in the same net gain of 60% of a volume available for
future writes with only a quarter of the amount of data movement.
I don't see why you find this objectionable.
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [ADSM-L] Remote tape drives, (continued)
- Re: [ADSM-L] Remote tape drives, Wanda Prather
- Re: [ADSM-L] Remote tape drives, Wanda Prather
- Message not available
- Re: [ADSM-L] Remote tape drives, Paul Zarnowski
- Re: [ADSM-L] Remote tape drives, Fred Johanson
- Re: [ADSM-L] Remote tape drives, Thomas Denier
- Re: [ADSM-L] Remote tape drives, Allen S. Rout
- Re: [ADSM-L] Remote tape drives,
Thomas Denier <=
- Re: [ADSM-L] Remote tape drives, Allen S. Rout
- Re: [ADSM-L] Remote tape drives, Allen S. Rout
- Re: [ADSM-L] Remote tape drives, Paul Zarnowski
|
|
|