Much appreciated, Ross. I didn't realize that the length should be the
'actual' length, when using s/w compression, but that makes sense, when I
think about it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ross Johnson
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 8:04 PM
> To: Carey Jung
> Cc: Amanda Users
> Subject: Re: Exabyte Mammoth tape type?
>
>
> Hi,
>
> The three parameters you need can be easily obtained or estimated.
>
> For no hardware compression:-
>
> length 20000 mbytes # Raw length using 170m AME tape
> # (use up to 40000 mbytes with hw compression)
> filemark 95 kbytes # From the Mammoth spec document
> # (long filemarks to nearest kbyte)
> speed 3000 kbytes # Max transfer rate from spec
> # (up to 6000 kbytes with compression)
>
> These parameters don't appear to be critical if not exact. I think they
> are used mostly by amanda for estimation, and to report the percent
> tape used, etc. Speed and length using hw compression will be modified
> based on your local experience.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Ross Johnson
>
> Carey Jung wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Anybody got a tapetype spec for an Exabyte Mammoth tape (not
> Mammoth-2) that
> > they would kindly share? How about some heuristics for a "good
> guess" at
> > parameters? Running the tapetype program seems to take hours,
> even days.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Carey
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > ----
> >
> > Carey Jung
> > IT Freedom
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 512.419.0070, fax 419.0080
>
