Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen
From: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: ESIX vs. SCO Xenix
Message-ID: <647@sixhub.UUCP>
Date: 17 Mar 90 22:44:03 GMT
References: <1826@crash.cts.com> <228@bradf.UUCP>
Reply-To: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Organization: *IX Public Access UNIX, Schenectady NY
Lines: 22

In article <228@bradf.UUCP> brad@bradf.UUCP (Bradley W. Fisher) writes:
| 
| There is one aspect of the *NIX wars that I haven't seen discussed
| yet ... one that I consider to be of the utmost importance ...
| how long does it take to back/restore from tape? So far comparing 
| SCO, Altos, NCR, and Interacive , SCO wins hands down! Typically, 
| 80 megabytes will stream to tape in about 40 minutes under SCO with
| a standard Wangtek 5099EN tape drive and PC-36 controller. 

  I see about 4MB/min overall throughput for backup with SCO. My
definition of overall is from the time my butt hits the chair until I
walk away, so the actual data transfer rate is a good bit better.
However, I do note that on the few occasions when I've had to restore a
backup, the speed is not very good.

  I use dump for most backups, occasionally cpio running through bundle
to improve the performance.
-- 
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
    sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
    moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc
"Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon