On 31-Aug-2015 07:03 -0600, Steinmetz, Paul wrote:
High sequence numbers (57793) resulting when using append was the
issue.
420 per night, this media set dated back to March 2015.
I broke the media set, had Friday night's save start at sequence 1.
Sat and Sun appended as normal.
All three save times reduced by 20 minutes, equaling the once a week
save.

Why would a high sequence number make a difference, it's only an
index in a BRMS database?
Maybe a question for BRMS support.


Physical positioning [of the tape heads] on the sequential [not random] media? Positioning to the physical row data, irrespective of sequential vs random\keyed I/O, would be unlikely to increase so precipitously; surely the time required for DB row-positioning could be measured in [milli]seconds.? Easy enough to test a CHKTAP specifying the larger sequence number, then another with a small sequence number, optionally with a rewind in between so as not to falsely inflate the timing of the latter.


This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2019 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].