Re: rmt as a bottleneck - Was: Weird behaviour of AIT-3 and (g)tar

From: David Gilbert (dgilbert_at_dclg.ca)
Date: 05/31/05


Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 10:24:14 -0400
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>


>>>>> "Bruce" == Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> writes:

>> Observe that I bypassed rmt; that bumped the transfer rate to
>> 10.976.153,96 Bytes/s, almost 30x faster. Should this really
>> happen? (And yes, I read rmt(8), but found nothing about this. :(
>> ). Thanks for your help;

Bruce> ISTR that remote tars have a delay of 10 msec or so for each
Bruce> block because the protocol needs to talk after each block (it
Bruce> doesn't stream) and there is a TCP startup delay of this
Bruce> amount.

I have often considered the problem of remote tape devices. By way of
introduction: I've done a lot of tape handling on UNIX and other
systems for complex block formats. The UN*X tape model is rather
simplistic.

The primary problem with rmt (and UN*X tape in general) is that it
cannot stream. If I signal "EOT" (end-of-tape) to tar, tar blithly
assumes I meant the block you just wrote caused an EOT. Some tape
hardware approximates streaming by estimating EOT ahead of time --- it
certainly performs better, but it's not a great solution.

Some tape programs on UN*X attempt to buffer heavily in RAM (team,
etc)... but to overcome this shortcoming in the multi-tape case, they
all need multi-volume smarts. Pretty much a mess.

So... yes... there's a chatter for every block because the protocol
needs to return the status of every block.

I keep threatening to write the difinitive tape suite for FreeBSD
... but something more important always comes along. Problem is,
everything needs rejiging ... tar, dump, tape drivers, rmt, etc.

Dave.

-- 
============================================================================
|David Gilbert, Independent Contractor.       | Two things can only be     |
|Mail:       dave@daveg.ca                    |  equal if and only if they |
|http://daveg.ca                              |   are precisely opposite.  |
=========================================================GLO================
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"


Relevant Pages

  • RE: redhat-list Digest, Vol 27, Issue 26
    ... The reason I was tarring a tar file to the tape I didn't want to backup a whole file system just to test the tape drive. ... I take that same tape and try to read it on the tape drive that is connected to the linux machine and it doesn't work. ... echo command as in windows ...
    (RedHat)
  • Re: problem with restore
    ... can tar be used to backup files on a machine with remote tape drive..?? ... the '-' on the tar command makes the 'f' go to stdout. ... Have you tried taking backup using tar utility instead of rdump. ... If you take backup and try restore using tar, ...
    (RedHat)
  • Re: Copying tar archives/tarballs to tape
    ... You may want to play about with the block size arguments in tar to find ... Some tape drives, when written to in ... Some apply error correction only on a per-block basis, ... for bzip2) flag when writing to tape, but bear in mind that compression uses CPU ...
    (uk.comp.os.linux)
  • RE: problem with restore
    ... Have you tried taking backup using tar utility instead of rdump. ... If you take backup and try restore using tar, ... Also you can verify the content of tape after backup using ...
    (RedHat)
  • Re: Tape backup using tar
    ... On Thursday 04 August 2005 11:06, Stuart Bailey wrote: ... >I'm haviong trouble using tar to backup to tape. ...
    (Fedora)