Text File

Aucbvax.4871 fa.unix-wizards utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!unix-wizards Sun Nov 1 03:09:34 1981 tape record size limit of 2 K bytes not that short. >From walton@LL-XN Sun Nov 1 02:58:55 1981 The wisdom from the 1960's is that as you increase your tape block size the probablilty of an error appearing in the block increases at a rate much greater than proportional to the record size. I have seen this in black and white in IBM documentation many years ago.

We have had direct experience with this using 1600 BPI tapes and a homebrew version of the V6 dump program a few years back. That dump wrote the table of contents as one record, of a length like 32K, though I do not remember, and restore suffered an unreasonable number of failures trying to read back the long record. We changed dump and the problem went away.

It would be nice to have some hard data on this phenomenon. In its absence, and remembering that many small computers have limited buffer sizes, I would chose a block size just big enough to give acceptably efficient tape utilization and not be too akward for the programmer. For 1600 BPI 2K bytes gives 71% utilization and is not all that bad. 4K gives 83% and would be my personal choice, while 8K gives 91% and would be my personal upper limit.

I know one application programmer who becomes slightly unfrendly above 4K. He lives in a PDP-11, and its his memory space you are taking.

----------------------------------------------------------------- gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/

This Usenet Oldnews Archive article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:

1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.

2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:

The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996 Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.