g00f,

Don't know if this appies to you but...

but for my site we have a number of configs where we use HW
rather than SW compression.

We have the tape length set to the tape capacity and have not
altered it to account for the (somewhat unpredictable) value
of HW compression at the drive. 

So we have a fixed length tape 'guaranteed' to hold the rated
amount of data (which may be uncompressable) and any compression
I get is a bonus, with the resultant indication that I've written
125% of my physical tape.


On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 08:59:16AM +0100, Marc Muehlfeld wrote:
> g00f schrieb:
> 
> > Tape Size (meg)        1446225.1   1446225.1        0.0
> >Here is where it gets fuzzy... and not in logic. Tape size... the
> > amount that was put to tape?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> > Tape Used... 359%?
> 
> Habe a look at your tapetype definition. There is a length of the tape 
> defined, and I'm sure it doesn't be the correct value for your tape. Amanda 
> writes to the tape until it's full and when the length value is smaller 
> than the real one, you get unrealistic values here.
> 
> http://wiki.zmanda.com/index.php/Tapetype_definitions
> # man amtapetype
> 
> 
> 
> > Avg Tp Write Rate (k/s) 57752.5    57752.5        --
> >Avg Tp Write Rate, the holding disk wrote to the tape drive @
> > 57MB/s....correct?
> 
> Not the holdingdisk writes to tape. Amanda reads from the holding disk and 
> flushes the data to tape with the shown speed.
> 
> 
> 
> >How did my Tapes load more then their capacity of 360GB
> > each (LTO3 @ 400GB native capacity - 40GB tape split size).
> 
> Have a look at the wiki link for tapetype definitions. You can use one of 
> them, if you find your changer there. Or you can create your own for better 
> values. If you create a own for your hardware, please share it on the wiki 
> or send it to the list (someone will add it then).
> 
> 
> 
> >  taper: Will request retry of failed split part.
> >
> >I cant tell if this is an error or just for my information, I assume
> > it caused by the Tape Split Size value we use.
> 
> I have no idea on this message. But it seams to be an information. If 
> something wasn't done successfully, you would see an "FAILED" in the 
> summary like
> genome.mr.lfmg.de  /tmp  lev 0  FAILED "[disk /tmp, all estimate timed out]"
> 
> 
> 
> >archive2.win -TS/033x010 0 722933590 722933590    --   198:16 60769.8 
> >241:30 49893.5
> >archive2.win -S/148Ax050 0 758000870 758000870    --   346:00 36512.1 
> >185:53 67962.4
> >
> >And finally this final output which tells me that bandwidth was different 
> >for
> > the 2 FS's , why would one throughput be higher then the other one.
> 
> Maybe there was some load on the server because of different services on 
> the first filesystem. Or maybe if you have configured to run two dump 
> processes on the server at the same time, maybe one was finished earlier so 
> the second could run faster after that time.
> 
> 
> Regards
> Marc
> 
> -- 
> Marc Muehlfeld (Leitung IT)
> Zentrum fuer Humangenetik und Laboratoriumsmedizin Dr. Klein und Dr. Rost
> Lochhamer Str. 29 - D-82152 Martinsried
> Telefon: +49(0)89/895578-0 - Fax: +49(0)89/895578-78
> http://www.medizinische-genetik.de
> 
---
   Brian R Cuttler                 brian.cuttler AT wadsworth DOT org
   Computer Systems Support        (v) 518 486-1697
   Wadsworth Center                (f) 518 473-6384
   NYS Department of Health        Help Desk 518 473-0773



IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain
confidential or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally
privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure.  It
is intended only for the addressee.  If you received this in error or
from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, please do not
distribute, copy or use it or any attachments.  Please notify the
sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this from your
system. Thank you for your cooperation.