Bacula-users

[Bacula-users] Unusually high compression ratio/capacity for LTO-4 tapes?

2012-02-08 15:50:16
Subject: [Bacula-users] Unusually high compression ratio/capacity for LTO-4 tapes?
From: Josh Nielsen <jnielsen AT hudsonalpha DOT com>
To: bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:18:55 -0600
Hello,

I am relatively new to tape backups in general and I have recently become accustomed to using bacula, and I have a quick question about compression ratios/storage capacity on LTO tapes. I have an IBM 24-tape library with Sony Ultrium LTO-4 tapes (Rated: 800GB/1,600GB compressed). I recently set a job for a full backup of one of our servers that has a little over 3TB of disk capacity. A du -h of that server yields:

Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00
                              3.3T  2.2T  983G  70% /

My question relates to this: from a fresh install of bacula (5.0.3) I created a pool for monthly backups and ran a full backup of that server above. All the tapes were marked empty and the backup started by picking a tape from the designated pool and backed up successfully to it, but I fully expected it to span _two_ tapes with 1.6TB as the supposed maximum "rated" compression capacity for LTO-4 tapes. However it fit _all of it_ onto a single tape. Here is an excerpt from the job output:

 Storage:                "IBM_Autochanger" (From Job resource)
 Scheduled time:         07-Feb-2012 10:26:00
 Start time:             07-Feb-2012 10:26:02
 End time:               07-Feb-2012 21:08:39
 Elapsed time:           10 hours 42 mins 37 secs
 Priority:               10
 FD Files Written:       458,656
 SD Files Written:       458,656
 FD Bytes Written:       2,362,329,795,537 (2.362 TB)
 SD Bytes Written:       2,362,399,227,266 (2.362 TB)
 Rate:                   61268.5 KB/s
 Software Compression:   None
 VSS:                    no
 Encryption:             no
 Accurate:               no
 Volume name(s):         ML1038L4
 Volume Session Id:      1
 Volume Session Time:    1328631897
 Last Volume Bytes:      2,364,166,103,040 (2.364 TB)

And 'list media' showed the pool as follows:

Pool: Monthly
+---------+------------+-----------+---------+-------------------+----------+--------------+---------+------+-----------+-----------+---------------------+
| MediaId | VolumeName | VolStatus | Enabled | VolBytes | VolFiles | VolRetention | Recycle | Slot | InChanger | MediaType | LastWritten |
+---------+------------+-----------+---------+-------------------+----------+--------------+---------+------+-----------+-----------+---------------------+
|      19 | ML1037L4   | Append  | 1 |            64,512 |        0 |   31,536,000 |          1 |   19 |         1 | LTO-4     | 0000-00-00 00:00:00 |
|      20 | ML1047L4   | Append  | 1 |            64,512 |        0 |   31,536,000 |          1 |   20 |         1 | LTO-4     | 0000-00-00 00:00:00 |
|      21 | ML1044L4   | Append  | 1 |            64,512 |        0 |   31,536,000 |          1 |   21 |         1 | LTO-4     | 0000-00-00 00:00:00 |
|      22 | ML1041L4   | Append  | 1 |            64,512 |        0 |   31,536,000 |          1 |   22 |         1 | LTO-4     | 0000-00-00 00:00:00 |
|      23 | ML1038L4   | Append  | 1 | 2,364,166,103,040 |  2,365 |  31,536,000 |  1 |   23 |         1 | LTO-4     | 2012-02-07 21:08:17 |
+---------+------------+-----------+---------+-------------------+----------+--------------+---------+------+-----------+-----------+---------------------+

I actually calculated 2,364,166,103,040 bytes to be 2.15 TB, but either way this is much higher than the rated 1.6TB with the (theoretically) maximum compression, as I understand it. Not until I ran another relatively tiny backup afterward (around 90GB) of something else did it fill the first tape and start to write the remaining 80GB or so onto a second tape. The job output above says there was no software compression being used, and unless it is a default I have done nothing to enable (or disable) tape compression on the IBM Library itself.

Has anyone heard of getting more capacity out of an LTO-4 tape than it is rated for? Or are the byte amounts inflated, possibly, by artificially counting skipped-over file systems? I got several messages like "/boot is a different filesystem. Will not descend from / into /boot", but you would think that it wouldn't count those in the overall storage amount. I essentially just want to know if these figures are real, and if I'm just getting an awesome compression ratio, or if something else is going on.

Thanks!
Josh

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>