Re: 3590 Compression
1997-01-31 09:43:11
Subject: |
Re: 3590 Compression |
From: |
"Dwight E. Cook" <decook AT AMOCO DOT COM> |
Date: |
Fri, 31 Jan 1997 08:43:11 -0600 |
Item Subject: 1.txt "internet headers"
Could not convert BINARY FILE item to text.
Will attempt to 'shar' item as file '01r7s8f' at end of msg.
.......................................................................
My belief is to always use "format=drive" and let the system figure
out what it can use...
Were Jerry says Q VOL will show the amount of data written to the
device, that is the amount of data given to the tape drive to write to
tape. If the ADSM client has compression turned on and the client
compresses 25M of user file space to 10M, ships it to the server and
the server writes it to tape YES it will reflect 10M BUT if the
client ships 209GB uncompressed to the server and it writes it to tape
and the hardware compression turns that to 9GB which it fits onto one
(1) 3590 tape the Q VOL will show 209GB's on that tape...
I really like it that way 'cause it helps in billing. If a client
wants to take on some of the workload and compress their data on their
end, when I'm computing data tossed at the server they get a break,
where as with the client that tossed 209GB's at the server... well,
they are going to be charged for 209GB's even though I have it on a
single 3590 cart tape. Should I educate the users, probably after the
cost of the equipment is recovered ;-)
later
Dwight
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: 3590 Compression
Author: ADSM-L (ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU) at unix,sh
Date: 1/31/97 6:36 AM
|
|
|