|
Once upon a time I had old drives and new drives. They were on separate IOP's/controllers. I set the old drive into a user ASP. Saving to save file in that ASP was FAST. No I/O contention or IOP overload. If the ASPs are on the same IOP you may get IOP overload. If the save files are in the same ASP, you will get disk/arm contention. Tapes will out perform that. Put your secondary ASP onto a different Buss and you will get excellent performance. You may only need a faster IOP for your tape drive to improve performance, or move your tape controller to a different IOP than your disk controller(s). Christopher K. Bipes mailto:ChrisB@Cross-Check.com Operations & Network Mgr mailto:Chris_Bipes@Yahoo.com CrossCheck, Inc. http://www.cross-check.com 6119 State Farm Drive Phone: 707 586-0551 x 1102 Rohnert Park CA 94928 Fax: 707 586-1884 -----Original Message----- From: jt [mailto:jt@ee.net] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 7:25 AM To: midrange-l@midrange.com Subject: RE: Reducing downtime for backups Phil, My experience is that saving to *SAVF is SLOWER than going directly to tape... I don't understand this, at all, but that has consistently been my experience. (However, that was 5 years ago.. ***things change***.. plus I didn't try going to a *SAVF in a different ASP...) I assumed there was a bottleneck in the I/O controllers involved... Easiest solution...: throw money at the problem (fastest tape drive you can afford)...
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.