Tape drives

SGI hardware problems, solutions, tips, hacks, etc.
Forum rules
Any posts concerning pirated software or offering to buy/sell/trade commercial software are subject to removal.

Best tape archiver tool?

tar
9
56%
cpio
1
6%
xfsdump
6
38%
 
Total votes: 16

User avatar
hhoffman
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Germany

Re: Tape drives

Unread postby hhoffman » Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:00 am

A non-portable archive probably means that tar uses a different structure to store files larger than 2GB, which would exceed the size of unsigned interger on 32 bits platforms.


thank's for the information!

getting similar results on my system

Code: Select all

tezro 1# diskperf -W -D -r 4k -m 4m testfile
#---------------------------------------------------------
# Disk Performance Test Results Generated By Diskperf V1.2
#
# Test name     : Unspecified
# Test date     : Sun Nov 11 17:14:19 2012
# Test machine  : IRIX64 tezro 6.5 07010238 IP35
# Test type     : XFS data subvolume
# Test path     : testfile
# Request sizes : min=4096 max=4194304
# Parameters    : direct=1 time=10 scale=1.000 delay=0.000
# XFS file size : 632029184 bytes
#---------------------------------------------------------
# req_size  fwd_wt  fwd_rd  bwd_wt  bwd_rd  rnd_wt  rnd_rd
#  (bytes)  (MB/s)  (MB/s)  (MB/s)  (MB/s)  (MB/s)  (MB/s)
#---------------------------------------------------------
       4096   14.34   24.72    6.93   12.15    2.57    1.00
       8192   42.10   42.90   12.53   16.99    4.93    1.99
      16384   63.67   66.46   21.77   23.31    8.89    3.84
      32768   60.91   87.78   28.05   29.15   15.20    7.31
      65536   66.43   87.43   40.85   30.31   23.52   13.02
     131072   71.12   87.82   29.12   29.03   23.77   21.73
     262144   77.17   87.76   32.22   29.06   37.68   32.35
     524288   83.21   87.93   50.73   43.53   51.78   46.27
    1048576   86.92   87.72   70.26   57.94   65.15   58.26
    2097152   87.74   88.35   76.77   69.01   75.16   71.22
    4194304   87.97   87.88   84.05   76.81   80.85   77.16

and

Code: Select all

tezro 2# timex /usr/bin/tar cvKbf 4096 /dev/rmt/tps1d5 testfile.deleteme
Warning: Inclusion of file -> testfile.deleteme will create a non-portable archive
a testfile.deleteme 91672047 blocks

real    12:38.72
user        0.30
sys      3:15.42


It would be interesting to see a test with the APD software.
Last edited by hhoffman on Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mia
Posts: 1055
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 1:54 pm

Re: Tape drives

Unread postby mia » Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:48 am

Those results are really impressive, which disks are those?
:Onyx2:

User avatar
hhoffman
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Germany

Re: Tape drives

Unread postby hhoffman » Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:48 pm

The test was done on a second 73gb fujitsu harddrive in the system.

Code: Select all

tezro 1# diskpatch -v
sc0d1l0:  Disk         SGI     ST373307LC      2741  Serial: 3HZ1HH7N
sc0d2l0:  Disk         FUJITSU MAW3073NC       0104  Serial: DAL0P876


The first drive is running irix.

User avatar
mia
Posts: 1055
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 1:54 pm

Re: Tape drives

Unread postby mia » Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:34 pm

I'm currently working on getting my TP900 back to work, ordered a few drives, so I can benchmark things using this scsi array. Stay tuned. (Okay I have to admit, I spent a few days getting my Dec Alpha box up again).
:Onyx2:

User avatar
mia
Posts: 1055
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 1:54 pm

Re: Tape drives

Unread postby mia » Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:26 pm

I've repeated the tests, this time using a 4 disks xvm stripe, with the following characteristics:

Code: Select all

root@plum:/mnt/raid0# diskperf -W -D -r 4k -m 4m testfile
#---------------------------------------------------------
# Disk Performance Test Results Generated By Diskperf V1.2
#
# Test name     : Unspecified
# Test date     : Thu Nov 15 14:54:46 2012
# Test machine  : IRIX64 plum 6.5 07202013 IP35
# Test type     : XFS data subvolume
# Test path     : testfile
# Request sizes : min=4096 max=4194304
# Parameters    : direct=1 time=10 scale=1.000 delay=0.000
# XFS file size : 3221225472 bytes
#---------------------------------------------------------
# req_size  fwd_wt  fwd_rd  bwd_wt  bwd_rd  rnd_wt  rnd_rd
#  (bytes)  (MB/s)  (MB/s)  (MB/s)  (MB/s)  (MB/s)  (MB/s)
#---------------------------------------------------------
       4096    0.91   21.11    0.92    0.71    1.19    1.02
       8192    1.85   38.92    1.92    1.46    2.38    1.98
      16384    3.91   67.90    4.12    3.11    4.66    3.83
      32768    8.23  109.96    9.07    6.99    8.74    7.33
      65536   21.90  152.30   19.27   14.80   15.76   13.30
     131072   28.07  190.96   25.77   23.38   22.94   21.72
     262144   37.86  216.67   46.98   48.26   38.08   37.64
     524288   37.10  228.82   41.17   72.44   37.47   67.08
    1048576   42.11  234.96   40.55  120.70   41.33  106.55
    2097152   47.29  244.59   48.59  172.35   47.59  157.99
    4194304   51.53  246.85   51.96  192.14   51.09  198.02


Time to tar to tape: 14m30s
Tar blocking factor: 1024
Tape block size: variable
Archive size (excluding metadata) : 46936088000
Throughput: 54MB/s

Time to xfsdump to tape: 15m56s
xfsdump block size: 2097152
Tape block size: variable
Archive size (including metadata): 48062600640
I/O buffer ring length: 3
Throughput: 50.27MB/s

Time to xfsdump to tape: 14m34s
xfsdump block size: 2097152
Tape block size: variable
Archive size (including metadata): 48062600640
I/O buffer ring length: 10
Throughput: 55MB/s

Possible improvements: two scsi lanes, remote tape, move the drive to another scsi card.
:Onyx2:

User avatar
mia
Posts: 1055
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 1:54 pm

Re: Tape drives

Unread postby mia » Sun Nov 18, 2012 4:40 pm

Same drive on OpenVMS:

Tape block size: 8192
Archive size (including metadata): 12.99GB
Throughput: 15.33MB/s (most likely IO bound).

Code: Select all

$ show devices mka300/full

Magtape VMS001$MKA300:, device type HP Ultrium 4-SCSI, is online, record-
    oriented device, file-oriented device, available to cluster, error logging
    is enabled, controller supports compaction (compaction  disabled), device
    supports fastskip (per_io).

    Error count                    0    Operations completed            1702549
    Owner process                 ""    Owner UIC                      [SYSTEM]
    Owner process ID        00000000    Dev Prot            S:RWPL,O:RWPL,G:R,W
    Reference count                0    Default buffer size                8192
    Density                     LTO4    Format                        Normal-11

  Volume status:  no-unload on dismount, beginning-of-tape, odd parity.

Code: Select all

BACKUP /NOASSIST /IMAGE /LIST=SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR]BACKUP.LIS /BRIEF DKA0: MKA300:BACKUP.SAV /BLOCK_SIZE=8192 /REWIND /LABEL=BACKUP
:Onyx2:

User avatar
hhoffman
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Germany

Re: Tape drives

Unread postby hhoffman » Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:48 pm

wow, that is slow.

Could you do a test with APD software?

User avatar
mia
Posts: 1055
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 1:54 pm

Re: Tape drives

Unread postby mia » Mon Nov 19, 2012 4:06 pm

the APD personality binary for lto drives keeps segfaulting on me, in strcmp() or strcat() I forgot.
:Onyx2:

User avatar
hhoffman
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Germany

Re: Tape drives

Unread postby hhoffman » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:00 am

Interesting. Does your version of APD software work with other tapedrives?

User avatar
mia
Posts: 1055
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 1:54 pm

Re: Tape drives

Unread postby mia » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:26 am

I think so, although I think this product was mostly aimed at LTO; I seriously question its usefulness.
:Onyx2:

User avatar
hhoffman
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Germany

Re: Tape drives

Unread postby hhoffman » Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:23 am

AFAIK, there is special configuration for APD needed. How did you configure your APB software?

Maybe useful is Sony's Unix Configuration Guide v2.24 at page 37
http://www.sony.jp/products/Professional/DataArchive/pdf/Unix_Configuration_Guide_v2.24.pdf

Also it seems that every specific drive i.e. sony SDZ-130 needs a specific APD license.

User avatar
mia
Posts: 1055
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 1:54 pm

Re: Tape drives

Unread postby mia » Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:22 am

I thought I more or less followed the same installation procedure as the sony one. Maybe I'll have to experiment again...
:Onyx2:

User avatar
hhoffman
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Germany

Re: Tape drives

Unread postby hhoffman » Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:15 am

Just want to let you all know, that my HP LTO-4 unit (model 1760) and my tezro are now working seamless together without any problems!

Many thank's to Mia and Recondas for the very creative exchange. Here is my final entry in my /var/sysgen/master.d/scsi file:

Code: Select all

{ TPLTO, TPLTO, 2, 14, "HP", "Ultrium 4-SCSI", 0, 0, {0},
           MTCAN_BSF|MTCAN_BSR|MTCAN_APPEND|MTCAN_SETMK|MTCAN_PART|MTCAN_PREV|
           MTCAN_SYNC|MTCAN_SPEOD|MTCAN_CHKRDY|MTCAN_VAR|MTCAN_SETSZ|MTCANT_IMM|MTCAN_BUFFM|
           MTCAN_SILI|MTCAN_AUDIO|MTCAN_SEEK|MTCAN_CHTYPEANY|MTCAN_COMPRESS,
           40, 5*60, 20*60, 20*60, 3*3600, 4096, 512*512,
           tpsc_default_dens_count, tpsc_default_hwg_dens_names,
           tpsc_default_alias_dens_names,
           {0}, 0, 0, 0,
           0, (u_char *)0 },

User avatar
mia
Posts: 1055
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 1:54 pm

Re: Tape drives

Unread postby mia » Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:35 am

Could you give us a hinv?
:Onyx2:

User avatar
hhoffman
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Germany

Re: Tape drives

Unread postby hhoffman » Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:14 pm



Return to “SGI: Hardware”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ChinChiller, robespierre, Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest