Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!pacbell!pacbell.com!ames!rex!samsung!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen
From: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: Tape backup performance on 386 ISA/EISA systems
Keywords: tape, performance, 386
Message-ID: <1070@sixhub.UUCP>
Date: 4 Jun 90 01:53:57 GMT
References: <1990May25.123302.26061@virtech.uucp> <1990May26..841@rdk386.uucp> <1060@sixhub.UUCP> <1990May31.155113.8383@ico.isc.com>
Reply-To: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Organization: *IX Public Access UNIX, Schenectady NY
Lines: 21

In article <1990May31.155113.8383@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes:

| 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.:-)

  See other post... I do an incremental or physical backup of the raw
partition first.
| 
| A better approach is to use a file system that doesn't have as much
| tendency to fragment...sorry for the obvious plug.

  Why is someone from ISC plugging BSD? You're right of course.
-- 
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
    sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
    moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me