Xref: utzoo comp.unix.i386:5427 comp.unix.questions:22499
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac!unify!rdk386!ron
From: ron@rdk386.uucp (Ron Kuris)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Tape backup performance on 386 ISA/EISA systems
Keywords: tape, performance, 386
Message-ID: <1990May26..841@rdk386.uucp>
Date: 30 May 90 04:22:42 GMT
References: <1990May25.123302.26061@virtech.uucp>
Reply-To: ron@rdk386.UUCP (Ron Kuris)
Organization: At Home, Sacramento, CA
Lines: 23

In article <1990May25.123302.26061@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes:
>I am trying to collect data on the performance of the different tape
>backup systems available for 386 bases Unix systems.  What I am
>trying to obtain is the speed in MB/minute of backing up a file system
>to tape.  In order to be meaningful, the file system must be at least
>30MB and be backed up using the following command (so that everybody
>uses the same mechanism):
>
>	/bin/time sh -c "find . -print | cpio -oBcC 10240 > /dev/rmt0"
>
>Note that you may adjust the block size (10240) as you feel is appropriate
>for your system as long as you tell me what you used.  Obviously you might
>also need to change the tape device name.
>
> [ stuff deleted ]
Seems to me like you're not taking into account filesystem fragmentation
or a bunch of other factors.  How about running a disk optimizer (e.g.
shuffle) before you start the test?  I've noticed a dramatic increase due
to less head activity (I don't have numbers handy).
-- 
--
...!pyramid!unify!rdk386!ron -or- ...!ames!pacbell!sactoh0!siva!rdk386!ron
It's not how many mistakes you make, its how quickly you recover from them.