On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 09:10:35PM -0500, Jon LaBadie wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 03:49:32PM -0800, John Oliver wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 06:14:37PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > > Throw in that marketing is usually a bit optimistic in saying its a > > > 20 gigger without compression, and that always needs a fudge factor > > > when actually estimating, and it likely this will happen. > > > > But fudging by 100%? I don't buy that... :-) > > You don't have to. Gene was only talking about a few percent.
No... if my tape is theoretically capable of 20GB uncompressed and 40GB compressed, and after compression amanda can only fit 20GB on it, that would hypothetically demonstrate a 10GB un-compressed capacity. Or, half of what it's actually doing. I do not believe Quantum sells a 10/20 tape drive as a 20/40 I'm sure there *is* some fudging going on, but not, like I said, 100%. I'm apparently "loosing" about half of the capacity of my tapes, and I'm puzzled why I'm the only one who sees a problem with that... :-) Hopefully, this issue will be resolved in a couple of weeks when I get a DLT7000 library in here. But I would like to understand the basic issue here... I don't want to be limited to 35GB with a unit that should be able to approach 70. -- John Oliver, CCNA http://www.john-oliver.net/ Linux/UNIX/network consulting http://www.john-oliver.net/resume/ *** sendmail, Apache, ftp, DNS, spam filtering *** **** Colocation, T1s, web/email/ftp hosting ****
