On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote:
> It includes a rewrite of amdump.sh into amdump.pl. The command-line
> argument handling in shell was just too gnarly to figure out, and
> shell is generally fraught with more portability problems than it's
> worth.
Hooray! This is com
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote:
> This is a great idea. I'm actually working on this part of the code
> right now, to make sure that amflush and autoflush will correctly
> flush dumps that are no longer in the disklist, so I think this will
> be relatively easy to add.
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Chris Hoogendyk
wrote:
> If there were a way to directly say, "fall back, don't tape," or
> "--disable-taper," then that would avoid the "expected" error message.
This is a great idea. I'm actually working on this part of the code
right now, to make sure that amf
On 9/9/10 11:55 AM, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote:
I bet most of you have some small nitpick with Amanda that you've
never felt warranted an email. Well, now's your chance! I'd like to
put some polish on Amanda, and it's hard for me to see the areas that
need burnishing, since I work on Amanda all
Just for the archives, evidently the inability to write a filemark
is a known failure mode on the AIT-3 drives (affecting about 1% of
the drives, according to the library support folks). However, the
really bizarre thing is that it can be fixed with a firmware
update that can be installed via a ut
On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 at 12:10pm, Frank Smith wrote
Oops, sorry I left that out: AIT3
What is different about writing filemarks (which fails) and writing large
streams of data (which works)?
Couldn't tell you. But I have seen tape drives able to write small
amounts of data but not large stream
Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 at 11:39am, Frank Smith wrote
>
>> Just trying to verify that I'm having an actual hardware error.
>> Backups on one tape server (that's been in use for years) failed with
>> the following:
>> taper: tape archive03 kb 0 fm 0 writing filemark: Input/o
On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 at 11:39am, Frank Smith wrote
Just trying to verify that I'm having an actual hardware error.
Backups on one tape server (that's been in use for years) failed with
the following:
taper: tape archive03 kb 0 fm 0 writing filemark: Input/output error
taper: retrying q42:/d5/backu
Just trying to verify that I'm having an actual hardware error.
Backups on one tape server (that's been in use for years) failed with
the following:
taper: tape archive03 kb 0 fm 0 writing filemark: Input/output error
taper: retrying q42:/d5/backups/oracle/Dmp.0 on new tape: [writing filemark:
Inp
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 08:13:44PM +0100, Rodrigo Ventura wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> I've recently upgraded to amanda 2.5.0p2 and switched the changer from the
> obscure chg-scsi to the much better chg-zd-mtx. All things have been running
> great for the past weeks, until yesterday.
>
> I got this
Hello.
I've recently upgraded to amanda 2.5.0p2 and switched the changer from the
obscure chg-scsi to the much better chg-zd-mtx. All things have been running
great for the past weeks, until yesterday.
I got this error:
*** A TAPE ERROR OCCURRED: [No writable valid tape found].
Some dumps may
Technology
Exelon Corporation
-Original Message-
From: Paul Bijnens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 2:15 AM
To: Ritchey, Donald
Cc: amanda-users@amanda.org
Subject: Re: Problems with new Amanda release (2.5.0p2): amcheck not
reporting tape errors via e-mail
On 2006
Hi,
This problem was fixed after the 2.5.0p2 release, use CVS or the latest
2.5.0p2 snapshot from
http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~martinea/amanda/
Jean-Louis
Jon LaBadie wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 07:03:01PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I recently upgraded the first of our Amanda ins
On 2006-07-12 02:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I recently upgraded the first of our Amanda installations to 2.5.0p2 ]
and found an unwelcome surprise: amcheck no longer reports tape
problems
via e-mail from an amcheck run out of the Amanda user's crontab file.
[...]
If I have the old ta
> I recently upgraded the first of our Amanda installations to 2.5.0p2
> ] and found an unwelcome surprise: amcheck no longer reports tape
> problems via e-mail from an amcheck run out of the Amanda user's
> crontab file.
I understood that was one of the changes in the new version.
Since I starte
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 07:03:01PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I recently upgraded the first of our Amanda installations to 2.5.0p2 ]
> and found an unwelcome surprise: amcheck no longer reports tape
> problems
> via e-mail from an amcheck run out of the Amanda user's crontab file.
>
> We h
I recently upgraded the first of our Amanda installations to 2.5.0p2 ]
and found an unwelcome surprise: amcheck no longer reports tape
problems
via e-mail from an amcheck run out of the Amanda user's crontab file.
We have amcheck set to run every day at 1500 to warn us if we have
forgotten
to ch
sing the HP provided LVD/SE cable. It appears the SCSI
> > bus was too long with that cable. After switching to a shorter
> > external cable (only about 30cm instead of 150cm) all SCSI
> > problems/tape errors disappeared.
> >
> >Bernhard
>
> That would be pretty
SE cable. It appears the SCSI
> bus was too long with that cable. After switching to a shorter
> external cable (only about 30cm instead of 150cm) all SCSI
> problems/tape errors disappeared.
>
>Bernhard
That would be pretty prima-faci evidence to me of a boogered
termination some
switching to a shorter external cable (only about 30cm instead of
150cm) all SCSI problems/tape errors disappeared.
Bernhard
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Joshua Baker-LePain
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 5:04 AM
>
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 at 5:30pm, Jerry wrote
> Solaris
> Exabyte EZ17 Autoloader w/m2 drive
> 225m AME self clean tapes
> Using dump
>
> Once it's busted can't even tar to the tape, either
> gets stuck in the middle or just starts freaking out
> and sounds like the tape is lost seeking around.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 01:51:19PM -0700, Jerry wrote:
> Has anyone seen this before.
> I keep getting end of tape errors... but to make it
> worse, I've seemily ruined 3 tapes now trying to
> amflush my data.
Based on your later postings on this topic,
you seem to have hardwar
On Thursday 10 October 2002 20:30, Jerry wrote:
>Solaris
>Exabyte EZ17 Autoloader w/m2 drive
>225m AME self clean tapes
>Using dump
>
>Once it's busted can't even tar to the tape, either
>gets stuck in the middle or just starts freaking out
>and sounds like the tape is lost seeking around.
>
>
control the changer.
Jerry
--- Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 10 October 2002 16:51, Jerry wrote:
> >Has anyone seen this before.
> >I keep getting end of tape errors... but to make it
> >worse, I've seemily ruined 3 tapes now trying to
&
On Thursday 10 October 2002 16:51, Jerry wrote:
>Has anyone seen this before.
>I keep getting end of tape errors... but to make it
>worse, I've seemily ruined 3 tapes now trying to
>amflush my data.
>
>After I get this error the tapes seem to be useless
>(at 100 bucks
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 at 1:51pm, Jerry wrote
> Has anyone seen this before.
> I keep getting end of tape errors... but to make it
> worse, I've seemily ruined 3 tapes now trying to
> amflush my data.
When this happens, what do you see in the system logs (e.g.,
/var/log/
Has anyone seen this before.
I keep getting end of tape errors... but to make it
worse, I've seemily ruined 3 tapes now trying to
amflush my data.
After I get this error the tapes seem to be useless
(at 100 bucks a tape that sucks). I am trying to tar
to them for example to overwrite the
>The tape device I am using is 0lbn. We are using software compression
>on the dumps.
That's probably not the right device name to get 35 GBytes on a DLT-IV
tape with a DLT7000 drive. You should be using 0hn (drop the 'b' --
it will lead you down a dark path).
Assuming you have not messed with
you using for the tape drive)? Are you using software compression?
I considered these numbers too high because of the end of tape errors.
The magic word assume factors in there, but I don't want to say it
out loud.
The tape device I am using is 0lbn. We are using software comp
>Originally, we had the tape settings to high, allowing the
>DLT 7000 drive with DLT IV tapes, 34,000 megs with a filemark
>of 8k. ...
Those numbers seem reasonable. Why do you think they are too high?
Are you using hardware compression (put a different way, what device name
are you using for
Did you add those patches ???
111972-02
112068-01
Chamby
- Original Message -
From: "Michael P Campfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 10:10 AM
Subject: End of tape errors
>
> Hello all. We have been ex
Hello all. We have been experiencing some very strange errors
on our Sun StorEdge L20 system and were wondering if anyone had
similar problems or knew of a solution.
Originally, we had the tape settings to high, allowing the
DLT 7000 drive with DLT IV tapes, 34,000 megs with a filemark
of 8k.
Bernhard R. Erdmann wrote:
>> I am hoping someone can tell me what these messages in dmesg mean?
>>
>>st0: Error 2603 (sugg. bt 0x20, driver bt 0x26, host bt 0x3).
>>st0: Error 2603 (sugg. bt 0x20, driver bt 0x26, host bt 0x3).
>>
>
> get rid of your Travan drive
>
As in the drive i
>I am hoping someone can tell me what these messages in dmesg mean?
>
> st0: Error 2603 (sugg. bt 0x20, driver bt 0x26, host bt 0x3).
> st0: Error 2603 (sugg. bt 0x20, driver bt 0x26, host bt 0x3).
get rid of your Travan drive
Hi All,
I am hoping someone can tell me what these messages in dmesg mean?
st0: Error 2603 (sugg. bt 0x20, driver bt 0x26, host bt 0x3).
st0: Error 2603 (sugg. bt 0x20, driver bt 0x26, host bt 0x3).
(several times.)
I'm running SuSE 6.4, w/2.2.14
scsi0 : Adaptec AHA274x/284x/294x
>
> > we seem to get a lot of 'not at start of tape' errors
>
> It's not an error, just a warning that the tape section numbers that
> follow do not reflect the actual tape section numbers on tape, because
> you hadn't started amrestore at the beginning
On May 19, 2001, "Carey Jung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> we seem to get a lot of 'not at start of tape' errors
It's not an error, just a warning that the tape section numbers that
follow do not reflect the actual tape section numbers on tape, because
y
We've been running amanda 242p2 with an Exabyte 220 library for the most
part with good success, but we seem to get a lot of 'not at start of tape'
errors. Looking back at the amverify reports, they seem to be primarily on
smbclient backups. We get frequent strange smbclie
>The problem: On occasion, intermittently and not always on the same tape,
>both servers will abort the backup almost as soon as it begins with a
>complaint that the tape is full. ...
Details, please. What **exactly** did Amanda say? Did it say it got
an I/O error, for instance?
In any case,
Hello, all,
Amanda 2.4.2 running on two HP 735 servers running HP-UX 10.20 servers.
I'm using gnutar 1.3.18 with the Amanda-recommended patches. The tape
drives are an Exabyte 8505XL on one system and an Ecrix VXA-1 on the
other.
The problem: On occasion, intermittently and not always on the s
40 matches
Mail list logo
