SUMMARY: cpio throughput

From: Matthew Ross Davis (mrdavis@ryoanji.isbu.digex.net)
Date: Sat Sep 19 1998 - 07:03:29 CDT


My original question had to do with expectations of cpio's throughput and what
happens during multi-tape archiving. In a word, don't use cpio for large amounts
of data, especially if you have the option to use tar!

Roger Fujii mentioned:
"Remember that the MAX block size you can use with cpio is 5120 (using -B). It
defaults to 512. Tar defaults to 20 blocks (10K). The *last* time I dealt with
this (a while ago), you had to be *very* careful of what you typed and when at
the continue prompt. The next tape had to be ready and the device much be typed
in (w/o space, etc)."

This confirmed the obvious fact that cpio's throughput generally sucks. If you
*ever* have to use cpio, make sure you use the -B option to get slightly better
throughput.

Rich Pieri had some things to say about solutions to my problem (and also
mentioned the block-size debacle):
"cpio to tape should always use '-B', otherwise yes, it will take forever...
There are some tricks you can use to get around [having to swap tapes
manually]. Specifically, instead of one huge backup set, break it up into
smaller chunks (one archive per directory, for instance). There are many tricks
you can use to calculate the size of each set (du, piping a test run through wc,
etc). If the size of the next set would exceed the current tape's available
capacity, send an 'offline' signal (mt -f foo offline) to the device to
cycle the magazine...Were either the -I or -O switches used? -I redirects
stdin, -O redirects stdout. Either will screw around with multi-volume archive
prompting."

I hadn't used either of those options, and actually didn't have any control
over how the huge-ass 90gig archive had been backed up, but I thank Rich for
those ideas - I'll probably just opt to never use cpio. :)

Marianne Rodgers had an interesting point:
"For multiple diskettes, or I would multiple tapes, you should have volume
manager off (/etc/init.d/volmg stop)"

The man page for the Sun version of cpio does mention this about floppies, but
doesn't say anything about tape drives. But just to be safe, I turned off vold
for the duration of this restoral, and also compiled and used the latest GNU
version of cpio.

Did it ever work? Nope. The drive kept wanting to be cleaned about 40 hours
through, and cpio would time out while the cleaning tape ran. We kept running
into so many problems with how this was done that the person who originally
decided to do it this way finally optioned to abort the cpio and re-backup
everything with tar.

In case people are interested, here are some stats from a DLT7000 drive using a
Compac IV tape. It's fairly obvious where cpio rates in this comparison. The
file used was a 180meg data file:

*--< TAR >--*
root@u2300c(1):/data> tar cvf /dev/rmt/2 tools/file01.dat
*__extended device statistics__*
device r/s w/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b
st36 0.0 302.8 0.0 3028.1 0.0 0.9 3.1 0 94

*--< PAX >--*
root@u2300c(1):/data> pax -w -f /dev/rmt/2 tools/file01.dat
*__extended device statistics__*
device r/s w/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b
st36 0.0 305.4 0.0 3053.5 0.0 1.0 3.1 0 96

*--< UFSDUMP >--*
root@u2300c(1):/data> ufsdump 0ucf /dev/rmt/2 tools/file01.dat
*__extended device statistics__*
device r/s w/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b
st36 0.0 58.3 0.0 3675.2 0.0 1.0 17.0 0 99

*--< CPIO (w/ -B option) >--*
root@u2300c(1):/data> find tools/file01.dat | /local/bin/cpio -oBv > /dev/rmt/2
*__extended device statistics__*
device r/s w/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b
st36 0.0 484.0 0.0 2420.1 0.0 0.9 1.8 0 88

*--< CPIO (w/out -B option) >--*
root@u2300c(1):/data> find tools/file01.dat | /local/bin/cpio -ov >
/dev/rmt/2
*__extended device statistics__*
device r/s w/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b
st36 0.0 323.3 0.0 161.7 0.0 1.0 3.0 0 97

------------------------------------
Matthew Ross Davis -----------------
Senior Internet System Administrator
Digex ---- Unix Technical Operations
------------------------------------



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Sep 28 2001 - 23:12:49 CDT