RE: Tape speed comparisons

["jt" <jt@xxxxxx>]

My experience in this is dated.  But, through mid-90's, using *SAVF was
DEFINITLY and CONSIDERABLY slower, but allows multiple concurrent backups,
so can close down the backup window quite a bit.  (I didn't read article,
but depends how you define "speed".)  My recollection is using *SAVF for
Large, but relatively few, objects is Particularly Slow.  Using for lot's of
small objects wasn't so much different (presumably because the overhead of
dealing with all the locks and such is same in both cases).

I would be SOMEwhat amazed if that's changed a Whole lot.  Plus, I didn't
experiment with *SAVF in separate ASP to try to improve the speed, but tape
drives are getting exceptionally fast these days.  (Iow, ymmv.)

| -----Original Message-----
| [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Ingvaldson, Scott
| Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 1:18 PM

| The Search400 Administrator Tip of the day today is called "Want
| to speed up
| your nightly backups? Use save files"
| http://search400.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid3_gci957211,00.htm
| l?track=NL
| -176&ad=479313
|
| Has anyone done any comparison testing on this?  It is my
| understanding that
| after disk arm contention is taken into consideration that a save to SAVF
| can actually be slower than a save to tape in many cases.