Re: DUPTAP command

[Neil Palmer <NeilP@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

270-2252, 950 CPW.

...Neil






My specific suspicion is that they are on the same IOP/BUS, and are
consequently overrunning it.  What is the speed of the processor?

Al

Al Barsa, Jr.





Well, the QIC was on the MFIOP, and the 8mm on a 2749 - but I don't have
the exact specifics on the ocnfig for the system the tapes were copies on
- wasn't my system.

...Neil






I didn't want to comment before, but it seems likely that you had some
sort
of other resource contention, like overrunning a common bus or something
like that.

Al

Al Barsa, Jr.





Just a hunch, but was the DUPTAP command submitted to batch? If so, maybe
there
was a lack of resources available to the job, since it was running at
priority
50. If interactive, what was the Interactive CPW available for the 270?
Bob Larkin

Neil Palmer wrote:

> OK - more a story for comment than a specific question, but I could ask
> why does the DUPTAP command take so bl**dy long ?
>
> Backed up all user data on an old model 400 (CPW 20.6) Friday night, to
a
> single 8mm 7/14GB tape (wrote 13.7GB to tape) on an internal 6390 8mm
> drive.  Took just under 4.5 hours to do the complete save.
> Saturday morning went to a model 270 (with CPW 950) to do DUPTAP from
8mm
> to an SLR5-4gb (4/8GB tape) on a 6382 QIC drive, reading from a 7208-342
> 8mm drive.  DUPTAP took just over 6 hours !!  Also, weird thing is we
kept
> waiting for message to change QIC tape after about 8GB, but the message
> never came.  It actually wrote all 13.7GB to a single 4/8GB tape (in
> format QIC4DC). ???
> Then back to new model 270 (CPW 150) with a 6386 QIC drive to reload all
> user data. This managed to read the entire tape and restore all the data
> in just under 3.25 hours !
>
> It makes absolutely no sense to me why DUPTAP takes so long to run -
even
> longer than to run the actual save or restore jobs on much slower
systems
> (although the restricting speed is no doubt the write speed to an
SLR5-4GB
> tape, not the CPW of the box).  Anyone else have any annoying
experiences,
> or knowledge, on this stupid command ?   ;-)