macomber@thoreau.nsc.com (Robert Macomber) (07/12/90)
I hate to parade out this tired out old question, but ... could some
kind ULTRIXite send me a copy of their ULTRIX solution for placing
multiple dump files on a single 8mm tape. The method I've used for
Suns with Delta Microsystems' 8mm drives doesn't work under ULTRIX
4.0.1. DS5000s with Mountain 2100D drives; if it matters).
Thanks in advance.
--
Robert L. Macomber MS 07-26 Phone: (207) 775-4677
National Semiconductor Corp. Internet: macomber@thoreau.NSC.COM
333 Western Avenue UUCP: {sun|hplabs|decwrl}!nsc!thoreau!macomber
South Portland, Maine 04106 My opinions are my own. Who else would want them?grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) (07/15/90)
In article <71@thoreau.nsc.com> macomber@thoreau.nsc.com (Robert Macomber) writes: > I hate to parade out this tired out old question, but ... could some > kind ULTRIXite send me a copy of their ULTRIX solution for placing > multiple dump files on a single 8mm tape. The method I've used for > Suns with Delta Microsystems' 8mm drives doesn't work under ULTRIX > 4.0.1. DS5000s with Mountain 2100D drives; if it matters). In what way does it fail? While we all know it should work just be using a no-rewind device, I'm beginning to suspect either backup or restore is making wrong assumptions about tape block size for the second file on a multi-file tape. ("low density" uses a smaller block size than "high density") I've had problems restoring from a multi-volume, multi-file restore tape, that I've been too lazy to completely diagnose. Doing a restore starting at the second file fails, but copying the second file to disk using dd and restoring from there shows that the data is really ok. I guess I'll have to break down and figure out the details of what's really on the tape, eh? -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing: domain: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com Commodore, Engineering Department phone: 215-431-9349 (only by moonlite)
grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) (07/16/90)
In article <13219@cbmvax.commodore.com> grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) writes: > In article <71@thoreau.nsc.com> macomber@thoreau.nsc.com (Robert Macomber) writes: > > I hate to parade out this tired out old question... > >... I'm beginning to suspect either backup or restore is >making wrong assumptions about tape block size for the second file on a > ulti-file tape. ("low density" uses a smaller block size than "high density") Oh, well...never mind... What is, is that that 4.3BSD dump that I used to use before switching to this RISC stuff is clever enough to increase the block size when writing to a "high density" media. The Ultrix version isn't clever enough to do this and always writes itsy-bitsy 10240 byte blocks. My daily incremental dump script was still specifying -b 32, which is a no-op with the BSD dump, but which does override the dump blocksize on the Ultrix dump and thus creates tape images that the Ultrix restore can't read in. I'd really appreciate it if anyone that has diffs to the 4.3 Tahoe dump/restore to make it work under Ultrix would post them or mail them here... -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing: domain: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com Commodore, Engineering Department phone: 215-431-9349 (only by moonlite)