Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!ames!ncar!ico!rcd
From: rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: Tape backup performance on 386 ISA/EISA systems
Summary: circular?
Keywords: tape, performance, 386
Message-ID: <1990May31.155113.8383@ico.isc.com>
Date: 31 May 90 15:51:13 GMT
References: <1990May25.123302.26061@virtech.uucp> <1990May26..841@rdk386.uucp> <1060@sixhub.UUCP>
Organization: Interactive Systems Corporation, Boulder, CO
Lines: 21

davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) writes:
[cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill) cringes...]

> | ...at the thought of letting someone's
> | program hunt around my raw disk patching things together...

>   True enough, but they are worth getting. Yes, I cringe when I run it,
> but I take a backup first.

But now we've come full circle...if disk fragmentation makes the backup go
slower, so you want to run an optimizer that rearranges things, but you
want to be careful, so you do a backup first...

(Yeah, I know, the de-fragmenting does good for a lot more than just the
backup.:-)

A better approach is to use a file system that doesn't have as much
tendency to fragment...sorry for the obvious plug.
-- 
Dick Dunn     rcd@ico.isc.com    uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd     (303)449-2870
   ...Simpler is better.