Re-running amtapetype might be a very good idea. It might point to where the
problem
isn’t, at least!
Do double check your cables. People have found problems in cables which
look like
reduced throughput. “Mpath” — I don’t know what it is, but could it have
changed
with your OS upgrade?
Wouldn’t hurt to check that the tape driver setting haven’t changed with the
OS work …..
but otherwise, it sounds good.
Deb
On Oct 21, 2014, at 7:43 PM, Tom Robinson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hmm, I did check my tape driver settings. When I set the tape library up, I
> spent a long time
> getting the driver settings right (on OmniOS) and took copious notes on the
> settings. My queries
> reveal that I'm not using compression (which is what I wanted as the vtapes
> are already compressed).
> LTO5 native is 1.5T; compressed is 3T.
>
> All my tapes are 'newish' (about one year old). The tape unit is the same age.
>
> For months I was consistently getting over 110% (highest 117%), then capacity
> dropped once to 86%
> and then consistently to about 56% (lowest 42%). Is there a block size issue
> (2x56=112)?
>
> All the weekly dumps are local so network shouldn't be an issue. The tape
> unit is using redundant
> SAS connectors. Maybe it's a mpath thing?
>
> Should I re-run amtapetype to see what it thinks the 'new' tape capacity is
> after upgrading the OS?
>
>
> On 22/10/14 10:47, Debra S Baddorf wrote:
>> Yeah, it sure does look like it ought to fit!
>> Could the tapes be dirty and not holding as much any more??? I have no
>> idea if that’s even possible.
>> But it kinds seems like your tapes are saying “I don’t want that much
>> data”. Compression issues?
>>
>> Your tapes were previously getting 117% capacity, and now are only doing
>> 86%. Is that the general summary?
>>
>> Unless somebody else can suggest some network (cable to tape drive?) or
>> system problems which might make
>> the tapes appear smaller than before? Compression issues? Read the
>> original message
>> at the bottom of this email for the original problem complaint.
>>
>> Deb
>>
>>
>> On Oct 21, 2014, at 6:20 PM, Tom Robinson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Debra,
>>>
>>> A brilliant motivational speech. Thanks. Well worth the read. In homage, I
>>> strongly suggest anyone
>>> who hasn't read it to go and do that now. Here it is again for those whose
>>> mouse wheel is
>>> dysfunctional:
>>>
>>> http://www.appleseeds.org/Big-Rocks_Covey.htm
>>>
>>> I will try your suggestions but want to make clear that the virtual tapes
>>> you see are the product of
>>> a daily run which is disk only. The weekly run puts all those daily dumps
>>> onto tape which then
>>> leaves the building. So I have both virtual and real tapes. The issues I'm
>>> having are in the weekly
>>> run (the dump to real tape of a set of virtual tapes).
>>>
>>> The tapes can be viewed as a bunch of big/little rocks. The total amount of
>>> data, however they are
>>> stacked, should still fit on a single LTO5 tape (amtapetype told me: length
>>> 1483868160 kbytes):
>>>
>>> $ pwd
>>> /data/backup/amanda/vtapes/daily
>>>
>>> $ du -shc *
>>> 512 data
>>> 1.0K info
>>> 119G slot1
>>> 144G slot2
>>> 115G slot3
>>> 101G slot4
>>> 80G slot5
>>> 157G slot6
>>> 189G slot7
>>> 117G slot8
>>> 1019G total
>>>
>>> Plus:
>>>
>>> 4.2G /
>>> 212M /export
>>> 212M /export/home
>>> 212M /export/home/tom
>>>
>>>
>>> So, it looks like I do still have some big rocks to put in first but on the
>>> surface of it, it looks
>>> like it should all fit in anyway (Did I sum that up wrongly? Looks less
>>> than my tape length.).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> (BTW, your last email is not so much a diatribe as a oratory or allocution).
>>>
>>> On 22/10/14 03:31, Debra S Baddorf wrote:
>>>> Since nobody else is chiming in, I’ll have another go.
>>>> I don’t think there IS a dry-run of the taping process, since so much
>>>> depends on the timing
>>>> of when a DLE is finished and ready to go to tape, and the physical
>>>> fitting it onto tape
>>>> (although, since you have a virtual tape, presumably that isn’t as
>>>> subject to variation as
>>>> a real tape might be).
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if your root (or boot or sys or whatever you call them)
>>>> partitions are now just slightly
>>>> bigger, after your operating system upgrade. That would affect the way
>>>> things fit into the tape.
>>>> One has to put the biggest things in first, then the next biggest that
>>>> will still fit, etc
>>>> to make the most of the tape size. (see
>>>> http://www.appleseeds.org/Big-Rocks_Covey.htm
>>>> for the life motivational analysis type speech that uses this principal
>>>> too)
>>>>
>>>> Yet you, Tom, are telling amanda to finish all the small things first,
>>>> and then put them onto tape
>>>> as soon as they are done:
>>>> dumporder “sssS”
>>>> taperalgo first
>>>> I have mine set to finish the big dumps first, so I can put them on the
>>>> tape first
>>>> dumporder “BTBTBTBTBT"
>>>>
>>>> Then — I want amanda to wait until it has a whole tapeful before it starts
>>>> writing — just so that
>>>> all those “big pieces” are done and available to be chosen.
>>>> flush-threshold-dumped 100
>>>>
>>>> And THEN — I tell amanda to use the principle in the above motivational
>>>> speech —
>>>> PUT THE BIG THINGS IN FIRST to be sure they fit (and that I don’t have a
>>>> 40% space left
>>>> at the end of the tape which still isn’t big enough for that Big DLE that
>>>> just now finished).
>>>> taperalgo largestfit # pick the biggest file that will fit in space
>>>> left
>>>> #"Greedy Algorithm" -- best polynomial time choice
>>>> # (err, I think it was maybe my suggestion that
>>>> caused the creation of this option,
>>>> # cuz of the Knapsack problem & the Greedy
>>>> Algorithm from comp sic
>>>> # classes. Which is the same as the
>>>> motivational speech above.) Put the
>>>> # big stuff in first! Then you can always fit
>>>> the little stuff in the remaining space.
>>>>
>>>> SO TRY THIS:
>>>> If your operating system DLE is now big enough that it doesn’t fit in that
>>>> last 40% of the tape —
>>>> then make sure it is ready earlier
>>>> dumporder “BBB” or “BTBT” etc
>>>> and that the taper waits till it has a whole tape worth
>>>> flush-threshold-dumped 100
>>>> AND that it chooses the biggest bits first
>>>> taperalgo largestfit.
>>>>
>>>> Make those three changes and see if it helps. I bet your tapes will again
>>>> be mostly full, and only
>>>> the little bits will be left over to flush next time.
>>>>
>>>> Deb Baddorf
>>>> Fermilab
>>>>
>>>> (ps the caps aren’t shouting — they are meant to make skimming this long
>>>> winded diatribe easier!)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 20, 2014, at 6:51 PM, Tom Robinson <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Debra,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for you comments especially regarding 'no record'. I did already
>>>>> make that setting in my
>>>>> disklist file for all DLEs. eg:
>>>>>
>>>>> host /path {
>>>>> root-tar
>>>>> strategy noinc
>>>>> record no
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't check it though until you mentioned it, so thanks again.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did read the man page regarding the settings for autoflush to
>>>>> distinguish the no/yes/all
>>>>> semantics. I chose specifically 'yes' ('With yes, only dump [sic]
>>>>> matching the command line argument
>>>>> are flushed.').
>>>>>
>>>>> Since I'm using 'yes' and not 'all' for autoflush, I don't think that has
>>>>> been interfering.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I ran the manual flush I did have to override the flush settings
>>>>> because amanda didn't want to
>>>>> flush to tape at all. Just sat there waiting for more data, I guess. I
>>>>> didn't record the command and
>>>>> it's no longer in my history. From memory, I think it was:
>>>>>
>>>>> $ amflush -o flush-threshold-dumped=0 -o flush-threshold-scheduled=0 -o
>>>>> taperflush=0 -o autoflush=no
>>>>> weekly
>>>>>
>>>>> So essentially I was trying to flush with 'defaults' restored. Would that
>>>>> mess with my scheduled runs?
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone have some clues about 'dry running' to see what tuning I need to
>>>>> tune without actually doing it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Tom
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 21/10/14 10:27, Debra S Baddorf wrote:
>>>>>> Not an actual answer, but two comments:
>>>>>> 1- you’ve added a new config “archive”. Make sure you set it “no
>>>>>> record” so that
>>>>>> when IT does a level 0 of some disk, your normal config doesn’t read
>>>>>> that as ITS
>>>>>> level 0. The “level 0 was done <date>” info is not specific to the
>>>>>> configuration,
>>>>>> but to the disk itself. For a “dump” type dump (as opposed to tar) it
>>>>>> is stored in
>>>>>> /etc/dumpdates, and any dump done gets written there. Amanda’s
>>>>>> configurations are “meta data”
>>>>>> that amanda knows about but that the disk itself doesn’t know about.
>>>>>> So your
>>>>>> archive config might be changing the dump level patterns of your other
>>>>>> config,
>>>>>> unless you set the archive config to “no record”.
>>>>>> I’m not sure if this is affecting your current setup, but you did just
>>>>>> add that new config.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2- I became aware about a year ago that “autoflush yes” is no longer
>>>>>> the only
>>>>>> opposite to “autoflush no”. There is also a new-ish “autoflush all”.
>>>>>> If you type “amdump MyConfig” the either “yes” or “all”
>>>>>> should flush
>>>>>> everything. But if you type “amdump MyConfig
>>>>>> aParticularNodeName” then
>>>>>> it will only flush DLE’s that match that node name, unless you set it
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> “autoflush all”.
>>>>>> You did mention that you had to do a few flushes lately. If you
>>>>>> really meant that
>>>>>> you had to allow some DLE’s to auto-flush, then the “all” vs “yes”
>>>>>> might make a
>>>>>> difference to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other people: how can he do a “dry run” here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Deb
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 20, 2014, at 6:05 PM, Tom Robinson <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Debra. I know there's a lot of info I dumped in my original
>>>>>>> email so maybe my
>>>>>>> question/message wasn't clear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm still confused over this. I only started dabbling with the flush
>>>>>>> settings because I wasn't
>>>>>>> getting more than about 56% on the tape. I can't see how setting it
>>>>>>> back will change that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I add up what flushed and what's not flushed, it appears as if it
>>>>>>> would all fit on the tape.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there any way of testing this in a so called 'dry run'? Otherwise
>>>>>>> I'll be waiting weeks to see
>>>>>>> what a couple of tweaks here and there will actually do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 21/10/14 08:28, Debra S Baddorf wrote:
>>>>>>>> Here’s a thought:
>>>>>>>> orig:
>>>>>>>>>> flush-threshold-dumped 100
>>>>>>>>>> flush-threshold-scheduled 100
>>>>>>>>>> taperflush 100
>>>>>>>>>> autoflush yes
>>>>>>>> now:
>>>>>>>>>> flush-threshold-dumped 50
>>>>>>>>>> flush-threshold-scheduled 100
>>>>>>>>>> taperflush 0
>>>>>>>>>> autoflush yes
>>>>>>>> You now allow amanda to start writing to tape when only 50% of the
>>>>>>>> data is ready.
>>>>>>>> (flush-threshold-dumped). Previously, 100% had to be ready — and
>>>>>>>> THAT allows
>>>>>>>> the best fit of DLE’s onto tape. Ie:
>>>>>>>> - pick the biggest DLE that will fit. Write it to tape.
>>>>>>>> - repeat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, the biggest one may not be done yet. But you’ve already started
>>>>>>>> writing all the
>>>>>>>> small pieces onto the tape, so maybe when you reach the Big Guy,
>>>>>>>> there is no space
>>>>>>>> for it.
>>>>>>>> The “Greedy Algorithm” (above: pick biggest. repeat) works best
>>>>>>>> when all the
>>>>>>>> parts are available for it to choose.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try setting flush-threshold-dumped back to 100. It won’t write as
>>>>>>>> SOON — cuz it waits
>>>>>>>> till 100% of a tape is available, but it might FILL the tape better.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Deb Baddorf
>>>>>>>> Fermilab
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 20, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Tom Robinson <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyone care to comment?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 20/10/14 10:49, Tom Robinson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure why I'm not getting such good tape usage any more and
>>>>>>>>>> wonder if someone can help me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Until recently I was getting quite good tape usage on my 'weekly'
>>>>>>>>>> config:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> USAGE BY TAPE:
>>>>>>>>>> Label Time Size % DLEs Parts
>>>>>>>>>> weekly01 3:10 1749362651K 117.9 16 16
>>>>>>>>>> weekly02 3:09 1667194493K 112.4 21 21
>>>>>>>>>> weekly03 3:08 1714523420K 115.5 16 16
>>>>>>>>>> weekly04 3:04 1664570982K 112.2 21 21
>>>>>>>>>> weekly05 3:11 1698357067K 114.5 17 17
>>>>>>>>>> weekly06 3:07 1686467027K 113.7 21 21
>>>>>>>>>> weekly07 3:03 1708584546K 115.1 17 17
>>>>>>>>>> weekly08 3:11 1657764181K 111.7 21 21
>>>>>>>>>> weekly09 3:03 1725209913K 116.3 17 17
>>>>>>>>>> weekly10 3:12 1643311109K 110.7 21 21
>>>>>>>>>> weekly01 3:06 1694157008K 114.2 17 17
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For that last entry, the mail report looked like this:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> These dumps were to tape weekly01.
>>>>>>>>>> Not using all tapes because 1 tapes filled; runtapes=1 does not
>>>>>>>>>> allow additional tapes.
>>>>>>>>>> There are 198378440K of dumps left in the holding disk.
>>>>>>>>>> They will be flushed on the next run.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which was fairly typical and to be expected since the tune of flush
>>>>>>>>>> settings was:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> flush-threshold-dumped 100
>>>>>>>>>> flush-threshold-scheduled 100
>>>>>>>>>> taperflush 100
>>>>>>>>>> autoflush yes
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now, without expectation, the dumps started to look like this:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> weekly02 3:21 1289271529K 86.9 10 10
>>>>>>>>>> weekly03 3:17 854362421K 57.6 11 11
>>>>>>>>>> weekly04 3:20 839198404K 56.6 11 11
>>>>>>>>>> weekly05 9:40 637259676K 42.9 5 5
>>>>>>>>>> weekly06 10:54 806737591K 54.4 15 15
>>>>>>>>>> weekly09 1:12 35523072K 2.4 1 1
>>>>>>>>>> weekly09 3:21 841844504K 56.7 11 11
>>>>>>>>>> weekly01 3:16 842557835K 56.8 19 19
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> About the time it started looking different, I introduced a second
>>>>>>>>>> config for 'archive' but I can't
>>>>>>>>>> see why that would affect my 'weekly' run.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I had a couple of bad runs and had to flush them manually and I'm
>>>>>>>>>> not sure what happened with tapes
>>>>>>>>>> weekly07 and weekly08 (they appear to be missing) and weekly09 is
>>>>>>>>>> dumped to twice in succession.
>>>>>>>>>> This looks very weird.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> $ amadmin weekly find | grep weekly07
>>>>>>>>>> 2014-09-14 00:00:00 monza /data/backup/amanda/vtapes/daily/slot4 0
>>>>>>>>>> weekly07
>>>>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>>>> 1/-1 PARTIAL PARTIAL
>>>>>>>>>> $ amadmin weekly find | grep weekly08
>>>>>>>>>> 2014-09-14 00:00:00 monza /data/backup/amanda/vtapes/daily/slot4 0
>>>>>>>>>> weekly08
>>>>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>>>> 1/-1 PARTIAL PARTIAL
>>>>>>>>>> $ amadmin weekly find | grep weekly09
>>>>>>>>>> 2014-09-21 00:00:00 monza / 0
>>>>>>>>>> weekly09
>>>>>>>>>> 9
>>>>>>>>>> 1/1 OK
>>>>>>>>>> 2014-09-21 00:00:00 monza /data/backup/amanda/vtapes/daily/slot1 0
>>>>>>>>>> weekly09
>>>>>>>>>> 10
>>>>>>>>>> 1/1 OK
>>>>>>>>>> 2014-09-21 00:00:00 monza /data/backup/amanda/vtapes/daily/slot2 0
>>>>>>>>>> weekly09
>>>>>>>>>> 11
>>>>>>>>>> 1/-1 OK PARTIAL
>>>>>>>>>> 2014-09-14 00:00:00 monza /data/backup/amanda/vtapes/daily/slot4 0
>>>>>>>>>> weekly09
>>>>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>>>> 1/1 OK
>>>>>>>>>> 2014-09-14 00:00:00 monza /data/backup/amanda/vtapes/daily/slot5 0
>>>>>>>>>> weekly09
>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>> 1/1 OK
>>>>>>>>>> 2014-09-14 00:00:00 monza /data/backup/amanda/vtapes/daily/slot6 0
>>>>>>>>>> weekly09
>>>>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>> 1/1 OK
>>>>>>>>>> 2014-09-14 00:00:00 monza /data/backup/amanda/vtapes/daily/slot7 0
>>>>>>>>>> weekly09
>>>>>>>>>> 4
>>>>>>>>>> 1/1 OK
>>>>>>>>>> 2014-09-14 00:00:00 monza /data/backup/amanda/vtapes/daily/slot8 0
>>>>>>>>>> weekly09
>>>>>>>>>> 5
>>>>>>>>>> 1/1 OK
>>>>>>>>>> 2014-09-14 00:00:00 monza /export 0
>>>>>>>>>> weekly09
>>>>>>>>>> 6
>>>>>>>>>> 1/1 OK
>>>>>>>>>> 2014-09-14 00:00:00 monza /export/home 0
>>>>>>>>>> weekly09
>>>>>>>>>> 7
>>>>>>>>>> 1/1 OK
>>>>>>>>>> 2014-09-14 00:00:00 monza /export/home/tom 0
>>>>>>>>>> weekly09
>>>>>>>>>> 8
>>>>>>>>>> 1/1 OK
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> More recently (about three weesk ago) I upgraded the OS. I don't
>>>>>>>>>> think it has anything to do with
>>>>>>>>>> this but mention it for completeness.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To get as much on tape as possible I was originally using:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> flush-threshold-dumped 100
>>>>>>>>>> flush-threshold-scheduled 100
>>>>>>>>>> taperflush 100
>>>>>>>>>> autoflush yes
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But now, in an effort to tune better tape usage, I've dabbled with
>>>>>>>>>> the settings. My full amanda.conf
>>>>>>>>>> is below. I include some configs (include statements) but have only
>>>>>>>>>> shown robots.conf and
>>>>>>>>>> tapetypes.conf as the dumptypes.conf and networks.conf are pretty
>>>>>>>>>> much stock standard and haven't
>>>>>>>>>> been modified.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> #amanda.conf
>>>>>>>>>> org "somedomain.com weekly"
>>>>>>>>>> mailto "[email protected]"
>>>>>>>>>> dumpuser "amanda"
>>>>>>>>>> inparallel 4
>>>>>>>>>> dumporder "sssS"
>>>>>>>>>> taperalgo first
>>>>>>>>>> displayunit "k"
>>>>>>>>>> netusage 8000 Kbps
>>>>>>>>>> dumpcycle 8 weeks
>>>>>>>>>> runspercycle 8
>>>>>>>>>> tapecycle 10 tapes
>>>>>>>>>> bumpsize 20 Mb
>>>>>>>>>> bumppercent 20
>>>>>>>>>> bumpdays 1
>>>>>>>>>> bumpmult 4
>>>>>>>>>> etimeout 3000
>>>>>>>>>> dtimeout 1800
>>>>>>>>>> ctimeout 30
>>>>>>>>>> device_output_buffer_size 81920k
>>>>>>>>>> usetimestamps yes
>>>>>>>>>> flush-threshold-dumped 50
>>>>>>>>>> flush-threshold-scheduled 100
>>>>>>>>>> taperflush 0
>>>>>>>>>> autoflush yes
>>>>>>>>>> runtapes 1
>>>>>>>>>> includefile "/etc/opt/csw/amanda/robot.conf"
>>>>>>>>>> maxdumpsize -1
>>>>>>>>>> tapetype ULT3580-TD5
>>>>>>>>>> labelstr "^weekly[0-9][0-9]*$"
>>>>>>>>>> amrecover_changer "changer"
>>>>>>>>>> holdingdisk hd1 {
>>>>>>>>>> comment "main holding disk"
>>>>>>>>>> directory "/data/spool/amanda/hold/monza"
>>>>>>>>>> use -100 Mb
>>>>>>>>>> chunksize 1Gb
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>> infofile "/etc/opt/csw/amanda/weekly/curinfo"
>>>>>>>>>> logdir "/etc/opt/csw/amanda/weekly"
>>>>>>>>>> indexdir "/etc/opt/csw/amanda/weekly/index"
>>>>>>>>>> includefile "/etc/opt/csw/amanda/dumptypes.conf"
>>>>>>>>>> includefile "/etc/opt/csw/amanda/networks.conf"
>>>>>>>>>> includefile "/etc/opt/csw/amanda/tapetypes.conf"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> #robot.conf
>>>>>>>>>> define changer robot {
>>>>>>>>>> tpchanger "chg-robot:/dev/scsi/changer/c1t5000E11156304003d1"
>>>>>>>>>> property "tape-device" "0=tape:/dev/rmt/0bn"
>>>>>>>>>> #property "eject-before-unload" "yes"
>>>>>>>>>> property "use-slots" "1-23"
>>>>>>>>>> device-property "BLOCK_SIZE" "512k"
>>>>>>>>>> device-property "READ_BLOCK_SIZE" "512k"
>>>>>>>>>> device-property "FSF_AFTER_FILEMARK" "false"
>>>>>>>>>> device-property "LEOM" "TRUE"
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>> tapedev "robot"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> # tapetypes.conf
>>>>>>>>>> define tapetype global {
>>>>>>>>>> part_size 3G
>>>>>>>>>> part_cache_type none
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> define tapetype ULT3580-TD5 {
>>>>>>>>>> comment "Created by amtapetype; compression enabled"
>>>>>>>>>> length 1483868160 kbytes
>>>>>>>>>> filemark 868 kbytes
>>>>>>>>>> speed 85837 kps
>>>>>>>>>> blocksize 512 kbytes
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>
>
