Hi! Am Mo, 2003-11-24 um 23.30 schrieb Eric Siegerman: > On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 09:46:31AM +0100, Martin Oehler wrote: > > Hmm, the only option that sounds like it could speed up the [amtapetype] process > > is blocksize. Does anyone know a good value for this? > > The same value as amdump will be using! With some tape > technologies, the tape's capacity depends very much on the block > size. In such a case, using a different block size for the test > would give misleading results.
Ok. > On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 10:28:38AM +0100, Martin Oehler wrote: > > My second problem is how to handle the "short write"? > > I have to send in the tape, but the are 3-4 GB of data on this tape. > > Without this data, my backup is inconsistent. The only possibility > > I see (at the moment) is doing a full backup of the partitions having > > some data on this tape. > > That's one possibility. You can use "amadmin force", staging the > full backups over a few runs if necessary to fit them in. > Another possibility would be to wait a tapecycle (or at the very > least a dumpcycle) for the backups to expire on their own. > (Don't forget to erase the tape before sending it back, if it > contains anything confidential.) I plan to use an new tape that's tested and dump the data from the damaged tape to the new one. This way I still have the incremental backups and don't lose a tape in my tape order. I have to admit that my paranoia urged me to do full backups on the affected partitions. ;) Thanks for your advice, Martin �hler
