On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> I'll certainly defer to you knowledge of the difficulty. I was thinking
> that the logic is already there for the split disk feature. The added
> code would be for saving its state and recreating it on the next flush.
Yes, that would be tric
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 10:37:48AM -0500, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> > When a large DLE doesn't tape all the split parts
> > before running out of tapes, could the subsequent
> > flush (amflush or autoflush) pick up where the
> > original tapi
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> When a large DLE doesn't tape all the split parts
> before running out of tapes, could the subsequent
> flush (amflush or autoflush) pick up where the
> original taping left off?
>
> I just had a large DLE (23 3GB parts) fail on
> the last part
When a large DLE doesn't tape all the split parts
before running out of tapes, could the subsequent
flush (amflush or autoflush) pick up where the
original taping left off?
I just had a large DLE (23 3GB parts) fail on
the last part by just 800MB. On the subsequent
amdump the DLE autoflushed the
