Hi, On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 01:24:46PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: > I don't seem to have the original post of Richard Fox, so could you please > specify what "this directive" is in the sentence: > > Otherwise, this advice is a little contradictory to the documentation which > states "On most modern tape drives, you will not need to specify this > directive.
My apologies, I had sent the message from the wrong address and cancelled moderation on it. I was hoping nobody would notice. My original message asked if this discussion was in regard to the "Maximum block size" (and presumably "Minimum block size") from the device resource. "Are you both referring to "Maximum block size" (and presumably "Minimum block size") from the Device resource? If not please ignore the rest of this message. Otherwise, this advice is a little contradictory to the documentation which states "On most modern tape drives, you will not need to specify this directive.". More importantly however, the documentation (for Bacula 7.2 anyways) says: "The maximum size-in-bytes possible is 2,000,000." which contradicts the assertion that these can be specified as 2MB which is not the same thing. Is the documentation inaccurate on this subject?" > On 06/01/2017 02:51 PM, Cejka Rudolf wrote: > > Richard Fox wrote (2017/06/01): > > > Otherwise, this advice is a little contradictory to the documentation > > > which states "On most modern tape drives, you will not need to specify > > > this directive.". > > Given that Linux with LTO-X tape drive is probably a majority system here > > (not counting > > configurations without tape drives), the statement is slightly misleading. > > I'm convinced > > that it is really not needed because of tape drive, server nor HBA, but it > > seems that it > > is really needed because of Linux. However it is not a real problem, > > because Linux allows > > to increase the block size "naturally", with the exception that you have > > limiting HBA. > > > > > More importantly however, the documentation (for Bacula 7.2 anyways) > > > says: "The maximum size-in-bytes possible is 2,000,000." which > > > contradicts the assertion that these can be specified as 2MB which is not > > > the same thing. Is the documentation inaccurate on this subject? > > I wrote 2 MB as a general recommendation over various manufacturers and > > software > > developers, with non-written suggested value 256 KB or 512 KB as max., so > > please > > take my 2 MB limit just loosely :o) Thanks, Rich. -- Rich Fox Systems Administrator JBPC - Marine Biological Laboratory r...@mbl.edu - m...@richfox.org 508-289-7669 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
