pentium4forever Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 We do backups with Retrospect and use LT03 tapes, compression with the tapes should be 800GB. I realize there is data that can't be compressed as high or at all. Not talking about SQL, just file backups, tell me if any of these tape sizes that were written to last week don't look right. One from week 3, the last time--only filled up the 3rd tape at 72GB! Obviously, we're on week 3 in the backups. week 2: tape 1 - 616GB tape 2 - 510GB tape 3 - 448GB tape 4 - 730GB tape 5 - 498GB tape 6 - 618GB What size would you consider too small or in determining compression might not be working to it's maximum? For SQL backups, they seem to use about 400GB each week. I don't know SQL very well, we back it up with a program called Redgate SQL Backup and then write the data to the tapes via Retrospect. Thanks, Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 Retrospect does not control the hardware compression with the tape drive. This is 100% handled by the hardware. See http://kb.dantz.com/article.asp?article=5658&p=2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauricev Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 The numbers don't look that strikingly different from my LTO4 results. In fact, overall, you're doing a little better :happy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.