On 2007-06-04 11:13, Marc Muehlfeld wrote: > Cyrille Bollu schrieb: >> It's probably just that your tape definition (that you created with >> amtapetype) defines a smaller length than the actual tape length. > Is there a way to get a more accurate result?
Note that not all the tapes are exactly the same length. and the amount of data that can fit on a tape is even dependent on lots of things, like the temperature, the number of "soft errors" etc. It's better for amanda that the stated tapelength is one that fits most of the time: if one byte does not fit, the complete last part needs to be redone on the next tape (that is a complete image, a complete chunk if you use tape_splitsize in that dumptype). So, I believe you actually got a very good value there already: keep it on the safe side. -- Paul Bijnens, xplanation Technology Services Tel +32 16 397.511 Technologielaan 21 bus 2, B-3001 Leuven, BELGIUM Fax +32 16 397.512 http://www.xplanation.com/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *********************************************************************** * I think I've got the hang of it now: exit, ^D, ^C, ^\, ^Z, ^Q, ^^, * * F6, quit, ZZ, :q, :q!, M-Z, ^X^C, logoff, logout, close, bye, /bye, * * stop, end, F3, ~., ^]c, +++ ATH, disconnect, halt, abort, hangup, * * PF4, F20, ^X^X, :D::D, KJOB, F14-f-e, F8-e, kill -1 $$, shutdown, * * init 0, kill -9 1, Alt-F4, Ctrl-Alt-Del, AltGr-NumLock, Stop-A, ... * * ... "Are you sure?" ... YES ... Phew ... I'm out * ***********************************************************************
