Re: V7.2 and DLT4000

On Tue, 12 May 1998 23:26:09 +0100, David Williams <djw@smooth1.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In article <6j9jne$vgk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dday@rheem.com writes >>We use a block size of 64 and a tape size of 4000000. >>A backup of our database (c. 50 gig) takes a little >>less than 2 hours for a level 0 in online mode. >>Hope that helps. The DLT's were a blessing for us. >>The same DB was taking 7-8 hrs on 8 DAT tapes. >> > I've also configured a DLT 4000 ona SUn box, block size was > 256K. That might even be faster... > >>David Day >> >>In article <355705a0.953547929@newscore.theplanet.net>, >> clivekeoughSPAM@SPAMyahoo.com (Clive Keough) wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> We are having problems with our V7.2 on UW2.1.2. >>> What suggestions please for archive tape block size when writing to a >>> DLT4000. It would appear that our chosen block sizes are not >>> compatible with 'something' :) >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Clive >>> >> >> >>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading > >-- >David Williams > >Maintainer of the Informix FAQ > Primary site (Beta Version) http://www.smooth1.demon.co.uk > Official site http://www.iiug.org/techinfo/faq/faq_top.html > >I see you standin', Standin' on your own, It's such a lonely place for you, For >you to be If you need a shoulder, Or if you need a friend, I'll be here >standing, Until the bitter end... >So don't chastise me Or think I, I mean you harm... >All I ever wanted Was for you To know that I care Thanks for the info, eventually we've changed compression, block size to suggested, and most importantly the device driver which seemed to have the greatest impact on speed. Clive