Message from discussion st.conf for Quantum DAT 160
From: tristram.sc...@ntlworld.com (Tristram Scott)
Subject: Re: st.conf for Quantum DAT 160
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:08:00 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:08:00 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx03.eternal-september.org; posting-host="EhauM853eWZx9oG5SB2xew";
logging-data="12458"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19c2RfJjDk07R35uGSbRy+VRC1S/QPLDNA="
User-Agent: tin/1.9.5-20091224 ("Lochruan") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.10 (i86pc))
Bruce Esquibel <b...@ripco.com> wrote:
> Tristram Scott <tristram.sc...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> I have the device working, but am hoping that there is room for
>> improvement, as it is around 30% slower than the DAT 72 drive I replaced.
> Just a wild guess but are you sure you are trying to write to the drive
> using compression?
Thanks for your thoughts, Bruce. Unfortunately, I see it being slower than
its predecessor both with and without compression, which makes me think
that compression is not the issue.
I wondered if it might be a block size issue, but my tests with dd suggest
that it doesn't care much about blocksize, as long as it is more than a few
kB. Maybe it is just slow.
I don't know why Quantum are being so secretive about configuration
details. They have been making tape drives for the Unix world for decades.
Dr Tristram J. Scott