In a message dated: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 19:12:57 EST
Benjamin Scott said:
>On Sat, 3 Nov 2001, Paul Lussier wrote:
>> Interestinly enough, I have an HP SureStore 818 DLT with a Quantum DLT7000
>> drive in it, and I get:
>>
>> # mt -f /dev/st0 status
>> drive type = Generic SCSI-2 tape
>> drive status = 1090519040
>[...snip...]
>
> Okay, what version of "mt" are you using, and where did it come from?
# dpkg -S `which mt`
cpio: /bin/mt
# dpkg -l cpio
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
| Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed
|/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
||/ Name Version Description
+++-==============-==============-============================================
ii cpio 2.4.2-32 GNU cpio -- a program to manage archives of
> Well, if you have actually seen tar+gzip encounter a bad block and recover
>later on in the stream, it might. :)
Er, no :)
>> His *whole* argument was based around the fact that dump can provide
>> incorrect data if the files/file system being dumped are active/
>> changing during the backup.
>
> It has been awhile, but the discussion I remember reading involved the
>fact that dump on an active filesystem could actually corrupt the filesystem
>-- not just the dump, the source filesystem! Granted, this discussion was a
>*looong* time ago, so things may well have improved since then.
That was < 0.4b12. I've been using it since 0.4b14 and never
encountered any problems at all.
> Money and our customers seem to be mutually exclusive at times. ;-)
I can relate to that ;)
>> ... you use RAID/mirroring and back up an isolated image.
>
> The Linux LVM is supposed to be able to do something like this, too.
>Have not tried it, though, and it still requires lots of extra disk space.
I know nothing about LVM, though I just compiled a kernel with it.
As soon as I:
Shut down my 2 systems
Move all my scsi hw from one to the other
Add my 2 new 9GB SCSI Drives
Reboot
Reconfigure all the hw
Make sure everything works
Get back up and running
I'm going to play with RAID, LVM, and XFS (RAID 0 and XFS I've
already played with, works nicely :)
> The only thing that's new is the port to Linux.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> That is the part that I worry about. If our customer was running IRIX, I
>would not have any issues at all with using XFS. Of course, if our customer
>was running IRIX, they probably wouldn't be our customer! ;-)
Well, I don't see why running IRIX or not is an issue. It's a matter
of whether or not you trust the fs. Of course, I wouldn't try
selling it to a customer if I weren't comfortable with it in the
first place. But of course, it's our job to support what we sell to
the customer. If we're not ready to support it for them, we
shouldn't sell it to them!
> Are there resize tools available for XFS for Linux?
Yes, I think so, xfs_growfs is what you use for that, though I've not
yet played with it.
> How about an ext2 -> XFS conversion tool?
Not to my knowledge, but if you have a separate disk or RAID array,
it's not hard to move the data.
> ReiserFS has some nice ideas, and there are some big sites using with
>great success. Notablely, SourceForge.
Lots of big sites using XFS under Linux, like SGI :)
(SGI's site probably has a list somewhere, I'm just too lazy to go
looking :)
> ext3 has another advantage: Suckers using Red Hat 7.2 will end up using
>it. That means more testing. :-)
Well, yeah, but XFS has already had extensive testing as a fs, and
it's at a commercially supported release level of 1.0.1 (which means
it's no longer a .0 release ;)
*****************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body.
*****************************************************************
