Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LTO\s+slow\s+restore\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LTO\s+slow\s+restore\?\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. LTO slow restore? (score: 1): Author: Joni Moyer <joni.moyer AT HIGHMARK DOT COM>; Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 12:46:31 -0400; Hello, I am trying to understand why LTO is so much slower than 9840B or 9940A when restoring a file? I know that it takes longer to load the tape and the performance is slightly slower, but what is; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2002-08/msg00849.html (10,994 bytes)
2. Re: LTO slow restore? (score: 1): Author: Remco Post <r.post AT SARA DOT NL>; Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:45:26 +0200; Hi, since the LTO tapes contain much more data, finding your data on a tape takes much longer than on a tape that is 'shorter'. Apart from that espacially the 9840 tapes are optimized for fast seeks,; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2002-08/msg00904.html (12,152 bytes)
3. Re: LTO slow restore? (score: 1): Author: Zlatko Krastev/ACIT <acit AT ATTGLOBAL DOT NET>; Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:21:58 +0300; LTO is much slower when it becomes to single/small files compared to both 3590x and 9x40 drives. Start/stop times and acceleration of 3590/9x40 are much better than for DLT/LTO. The latter have to re; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/2002-08/msg01050.html (13,176 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]