ANK@CUNYVMS1.BITNET.UUCP (03/03/87)
There is a tape that was made in VMS format and files ciopied into it
When we mounted it and copied from mtb0: to drb0: it increased tenfold.
I tried the convert/fdl but it did not work ? the basic info is as follows
on tape if we do a DIRECT/FULL it gives the file structure as follows:
Directory MTB0:[]
MODEL_7.DAT;2 File ID: (1,1,1)
Size: 129/129 Owner: [261,4]
Created: 28-DEC-1985 00:00 Revised: <None specified>
Expires: <None specified> Backup: <No backup done>
File organization: Sequential
File attributes: Allocation: 129, Extend: 0, Global buffer count: 0, Version
limit: 0
Record format: Variable length, maximum 73 bytes
Record attributes: Carriage return carriage control, Non-spanned
Journaling enabled: None
File protection: System:RWED, Owner:RWED, Group:RWED, World:RWED
Access Cntrl List: None
but after coping by straight COPY MTB0:*.* DRB2:*.*
SIZE increases 30 times so does the allocation.
We cannot afford to have 2000 blocks translate to 43000 blocks over 8 files
since we have over 500 user accounts in our VAX11/780
Thanks
Anil Khullar
{Ph.D. Program in Psychology
City Univ. Graduate Center.
New York NY 10036}
ank%cunyvms1.BITNET@wiscvm.educetron%utah-ced@UTAH-CS.ARPA.UUCP (03/03/87)
I can't even begin to figure out what the problem is, the question is worded in such a strange manner with lots of information missing.... 1. where do the numbers 2000 and 43000 come from??? 2000 * 30 = 60000, size in the example is 129, 129 * 8 is about 10000..... 2. What is the blocksize of the tape?? I seem to recall that ansi D tapes give the size in blocks (as does directory) and the number of bytes/block varies tape to tape. Could this be your conversion factor??? If the tape was blocked to 10220, this would be a factor of 20, and 15320 would be a factor of 30. 3. How was the tape written (and with what utility), how was it mounted? -ed cetron cetron@utah-cs.arpa
CP.PAVER@MCC.COM.UUCP (03/03/87)
Tape blocks are typically bigger than disk blocks. The block size for
disk is 512 bytes. The default block size for a VMS tape is 2048 (I
think). Furthermore the block size on tape can be increased if you want.
The DIRECTORY command reports BLOCKS. So what is one block on the tape
will almost always be more than one block on disk. 512 character tape
blocks are quite inefficient. You end up with more blank tape than tape
data on it!
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Bob Paver (512) 338-3316
Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corp. (MCC)
3500 West Balcones Center Drive
Austin, TX 78759
ARPA: paver@mcc.com
UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo,harvard,gatech}!ut-sally!im4u!milano!paver
-------LEICHTER-JERRY@YALE.ARPA.UUCP (03/03/87)
There is a tape that was made in VMS format and files ciopied into it
When we mounted it and copied from mtb0: to drb0: it increased tenfold.
The size reported by DIRECTORY is always in blocks. On a disk, blocks are
always 512. On a tape, they could be of almost any size. A "blocking factor"
of 10 - which results in a block size of 5120 bytes on the tape - is common
(it's the default used by Unix tar on VAXes, as one example). This would
produce exactly the effect you describe.
I tried the convert/fdl but it did not work?
How in heaven's name do you expect anyone to respond to a statement that some-
thing "didn't work" when you provide no information about what you actually
did, or what happened as a result? (What CONVERT/FDL tries to do depends
quite fundamentally on the FDL file you provide.)
the basic info is as follows
on tape if we do a DIRECT/FULL it gives the file structure as follows:
Directory MTB0:[]
MODEL_7.DAT;2 File ID: (1,1,1)
Size: 129/129 Owner: [261,4]
...
but after coping by straight COPY MTB0:*.* DRB2:*.* SIZE increases 30
times so does the allocation.
Above you said it increase by a factor of 10. Well, a blocking factor of 30
is just as likely as a blocking factor of 10.
We cannot afford to have 2000 blocks translate to 43000 blocks over 8
files since we have over 500 user accounts in our VAX11/780
Then you can't afford to keep this data on line.
-- Jerry
-------dp@JASPER.PALLADIAN.COM.UUCP (03/03/87)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 87 23:50 EST
From: <ANK%CUNYVMS1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
There is a tape that was made in VMS format and files ciopied into it
When we mounted it and copied from mtb0: to drb0: it increased tenfold.
I tried the convert/fdl but it did not work ? the basic info is as follows
on tape if we do a DIRECT/FULL it gives the file structure as follows:
Directory MTB0:[]
MODEL_7.DAT;2 File ID: (1,1,1)
Size: 129/129 Owner: [261,4]
Created: 28-DEC-1985 00:00 Revised: <None specified>
Expires: <None specified> Backup: <No backup done>
File organization: Sequential
File attributes: Allocation: 129, Extend: 0, Global buffer count: 0, Version
limit: 0
Record format: Variable length, maximum 73 bytes
Record attributes: Carriage return carriage control, Non-spanned
Journaling enabled: None
File protection: System:RWED, Owner:RWED, Group:RWED, World:RWED
Access Cntrl List: None
but after coping by straight COPY MTB0:*.* DRB2:*.*
SIZE increases 30 times so does the allocation.
We cannot afford to have 2000 blocks translate to 43000 blocks over 8 files
since we have over 500 user accounts in our VAX11/780
Thanks
Anil Khullar
{Ph.D. Program in Psychology
City Univ. Graduate Center.
New York NY 10036}
ank%cunyvms1.BITNET@wiscvm.edu
the reason for this is that blocks on tape drives are larger than disk blocks. a tape
block is 8kb. a disk block is 512 bytes.
<dp>