On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Joseph L. Casale
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Exactly? They are 200/400 tapes.

  I ignore "compressed capacity" claims; they are a marketing gimmick
and always have been.  Compression rates vary tremendously.  You might
get no compression gain, or 1.5:1, or 3:1.  So I just avoid quoting
"compressed capacity" entirely.

  By "200/400 tape", I surmise you LTO-2.  Those do have a nominal,
native capacity of 200 GB.  But in the land of disks and tapes, "200
GB" means "200 billion bytes".  In the land of software and operating
systems, "200 GB" means "200 * 2^30 bytes".  This is sometimes
explicitly written as "200 GiB".  Compare:

200 GB  = 200,000,000,000 bytes
200 GiB = 214,748,364,800 bytes
 14 GiB =  14,748,364,800 bytes (difference)

  So right away, you're only going to get 93% of that "200 GB" you
thought you had.

  Then there is overhead for metadata.  Is this a large number of
small files?  If so, the metadata for each file may be becoming
significant.  I don't know anything about BUE's on-tape format, but I
would guess they are likely storing a header at the start of each file
(with name, datestamps, size, NTFS ACL, etc.).  Or maybe in a catalog
at the start/end of the tape.  Either way, it consumes tape space.

  You also loose some tape capacity to bad blocks.  Any big tape is
going to have some number of bad blocks.  Nominally, the drive
automatically detects and corrects for them, so the backup software
(and you) are not aware it is even happening.  But it can eat into the
nominal capacity of the tape.  Is it an old tape?

  Finally, yes, a bad or simplistic compression algorithm may well
make the "compressed" data larger for already-compressed input.  A
smart compression implementation will detect this and just store the
straight input data, but tape drives are not known for using smart
implementations.  So turning off hardware compression may well gain
you some tape space back.  But perhaps not as much as you think.

-- Ben

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!    ~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

Reply via email to