SCOUG Logo


Next Meeting: Sat, TBD
Meeting Directions


Be a Member
Join SCOUG

Navigation:


Help with Searching

20 Most Recent Documents
Search Archives
Index by date, title, author, category.


Features:

Mr. Know-It-All
Ink
Download!










SCOUG:

Home

Email Lists

SIGs (Internet, General Interest, Programming, Network, more..)

Online Chats

Business

Past Presentations

Credits

Submissions

Contact SCOUG

Copyright SCOUG



warp expowest
Pictures from Sept. 1999

The views expressed in articles on this site are those of their authors.

warptech
SCOUG was there!


Copyright 1998-2024, Southern California OS/2 User Group. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

SCOUG, Warp Expo West, and Warpfest are trademarks of the Southern California OS/2 User Group. OS/2, Workplace Shell, and IBM are registered trademarks of International Business Machines Corporation. All other trademarks remain the property of their respective owners.

The Southern California OS/2 User Group
USA

SCOUG-HELP Mailing List Archives

Return to [ 31 | July | 2002 ]

<< Previous Message << >> Next Message >>


Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 22:10:33 PST7
From: Peter Skye <pskye@peterskye.com >
Reply-To: scoug-help@scoug.com
To: scoug-help@scoug.com
Subject: SCOUG-Help: Re: Drive Image Backups

Content Type: text/plain

=====================================================
If you are responding to someone asking for help who
may not be a member of this list, be sure to use the
REPLY TO ALL feature of your email program.
=====================================================

> > Compression speeds things up (there's less I/O)
>
> Compression should do exactly the opposite of what you stated.

With compression you spend *more* time in cpu processing (doing the
actual compression) but you write *fewer* bytes to the hard drive.

With a fast processor and a slow drive, you're I/O bound. With a fast
drive and a slow processor, you're processor bound.

If your system bottleneck is drive I/O and you write (with 2:1
compression) half the number of bytes, then it should take only half the
time for the writing. (Well, if there's a CRC check read-after-write
then the total write time might drop by one-third.)

Always trying to crank things up, I did install dual tape drives in one
of my machines a couple of years back. Both were Seagate 8GB (4GB
native), one was ATAPI and the other was SCSI. I was curious about the
speed improvement I'd get with SCSI. Ahahahahaha! The SCSI drive was
about 5% slower than the ATAPI drive. (Back Again/2, maximum
compression, Travan TR-4 tapes in both, Tekram DC-310 SCSI card w/ LSI
Logic chips, all hard drives were IDE.) Never did figure out why.

- Peter

=====================================================

To unsubscribe from this list, send an email message
to "steward@scoug.com". In the body of the message,
put the command "unsubscribe scoug-help".

For problems, contact the list owner at
"rollin@scoug.com".

=====================================================


<< Previous Message << >> Next Message >>

Return to [ 31 | July | 2002 ]



The Southern California OS/2 User Group
P.O. Box 26904
Santa Ana, CA 92799-6904, USA

Copyright 2001 the Southern California OS/2 User Group. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

SCOUG, Warp Expo West, and Warpfest are trademarks of the Southern California OS/2 User Group. OS/2, Workplace Shell, and IBM are registered trademarks of International Business Machines Corporation. All other trademarks remain the property of their respective owners.