Hi, since the LTO tapes contain much more data, finding your data on a tape takes much longer than on a tape that is 'shorter'. Apart from that espacially the 9840 tapes are optimized for fast seeks,even unload with the tape set to the middle, so the average length of tape that has to bee wound is cut in half. These high end drives have very little contact between drive and tape (none), thus allowing for much greater tape-speeds.
On dinsdag, augustus 20, 2002, at 06:46 , Joni Moyer wrote: > Hello, > > I am trying to understand why LTO is so much slower than 9840B or 9940A > when restoring a file? I know that it takes longer to load the tape and > the performance is slightly slower, but what is the technical reason for > LTO having slow restores for files and databases? Does anyone have any > statistics/numbers that I might be able to go by? Right now we have > 3590's > and we are getting about 25 GB/HR on the mainframe. We are going to be > moving TSM to a SUN/Solaris server which will be put on the SAN. > Mainly I > am trying to understand what goes on when a server tries to restore a > file/database from an LTO tape and how the 9840B or 9940A is better? > Thanks in advance for any input!!!! > > Joni Moyer > Associate Systems Programmer > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > (717)975-8338 > --- Met vriendelijke groeten, Remco Post SARA - Stichting Academisch Rekencentrum Amsterdam http://www.sara.nl High Performance Computing Tel. +31 20 592 8008 Fax. +31 20 668 3167 "I really didn't foresee the Internet. But then, neither did the computer industry. Not that that tells us very much of course - the computer industry didn't even foresee that the century was going to end." -- Douglas Adams
