--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jon LaBadie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 11:55:45PM -0000, knappenschaenke wrote: > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jon LaBadie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Couple of things, I don't use DLT. You say you are using 35GB tapes. > But isn't the DLT4000 a 20GB drive? Are the larger tapes compatible?
I think so, because I used these tapes (and the drive) on a WinNT- Server before. > > From your original post you showed the results of mt status commands. > They all included lines like this: > > drive status = -2113928192 > > I don't know what it should be, but that doesn't look right to me. ????????????? > > Two of the status outputs show a block size of 0, probably meaning > "variable". But the other two show a fixed block size of 1024 "bytes". > These two devices may not be usable by amanda as its minimal block > size is 32 KByte. No problem, I tested with all devices with the same results. > > You tried to show that the tape device was installed and working by > using the command "tar -cf /dev/nst0 /tmp/myfiles". That device had > a "variable" block size and tar uses 10KByte by default. The tar > command mimiced the success amanda had. When you ran amtapetype on > /dev/nst0 it first reported: > > "Writing 128 Mbyte compresseable data: 29 sec" > > So a write comparable to your tar command succeeded. Then amanda > rewound the tape and started a second write. That is when it failed. > Perhaps you could run a test that more closely matches amanda's code > by putting the following into a shell script and running it. > > mt -f /dev/nst0 rewind > dd bs=32k if=/dev/random of=/dev/nst0 count=4000 > mt -f /dev/nst0 rewind > dd bs=32k if=/dev/random of=/dev/nst0 count=4000 > > It looks to me like the installation, or the configuration, > of the drive is the problem. > -- > Jon H. LaBadie [EMAIL PROTECTED] > JG Computing > 4455 Province Line Road (609) 252-0159 > Princeton, NJ 08540-4322 (609) 683-7220 (fax) > -------------------------------------------- First -------------------------------------------- asterix: # mt -f /dev/nst0l rewind asterix: # dd bs=32k if=/dev/random of=/dev/nst0 count=1000 0+1000 Datensätze ein 0+1000 Datensätze aus 13917 bytes (14 kB) copied, 5149,72 seconds, 0,0 kB/s --------------------------------------------- Second --------------------------------------------- asterix: # mt -f /dev/nst0l rewind asterix: # dd bs=32k if=/dev/random of=/dev/nst0 count=1000 0+1000 Datensätze ein 0+1000 Datensätze aus 12938 bytes (14 kB) copied, 5764,14 seconds, 0,0 kB/s So I didn´t test it with count=4000 !
