On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, J Wunsch wrote:
> Matthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Too many people have objected. I didn't make my case clearly enough,
> > but because enough people of have raised issues, the default won't
> > be changed.
>
> Too bad. I think your idea was absoultely righ
"Rodney W. Grimes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you give me a model of a QIC drive that has the ``can't write 2
> FM's'' and I'll see if I can find one so that I can see this problem
> first hand and propose a solution to it.
The problem with QIC drives is that they only support writing at B
Matthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Too many people have objected. I didn't make my case clearly enough,
> but because enough people of have raised issues, the default won't
> be changed.
Too bad. I think your idea was absoultely right, and i'm rather tired
myself to have to `fix' it for
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Frank Mayhar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bob Bishop wrote:
>
> > BUT I have to say that on principle I'm with Rod on this one: EOF
> > != EOT and mixing them up is a recipe for (inter alia) finding you
> > can't read back dumps when you need them.
>
> Not to mentio
> On Tuesday, 16 November 1999 at 8:04:05 -0800, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> >
> > Too many people have objected. I didn't make my case clearly enough,
> > but because enough people of have raised issues, the default won't
> > be changed.
>
> I think this is the correct decision in the short term. I
On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Tuesday, 16 November 1999 at 8:04:05 -0800, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> >
> > Too many people have objected. I didn't make my case clearly enough,
> > but because enough people of have raised issues, the default won't
> > be changed.
>
> I think this is th
On Tuesday, 16 November 1999 at 8:04:05 -0800, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> Too many people have objected. I didn't make my case clearly enough,
> but because enough people of have raised issues, the default won't
> be changed.
I think this is the correct decision in the short term. In the longer
t
Too many people have objected. I didn't make my case clearly enough, but
because enough people of have raised issues, the default won't be changed.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
> >
> > Sorry, no. When you write a tape with these devices there's always a
> > leading erased area. That's why if you overwrite the front a tape you
> > can't skip past this area to recover data you really need. A misfeature of
> > modern technology.
>
> Is this anchored in the standards? Wha
>
> Every night, I do a partial backup, one file on tape for each file
> system, about 12 in all. Subsequently I read the tape and list
> contents until I hit EOT. OK, the first time I use a tape, there will
> be nothing behind it. But the next time, the total length of tape
> written may be s
On Monday, 15 November 1999 at 9:36:16 -0800, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>>
>> There seems to be a great amount of confusion about the 2 EOF marks on
>> tapes. It has nothing to do with physical EOT, even the 556BPI 1/2"
>> tape drives on an IBM 1401 can detect physical EOT. The problem is
>> with LO
On Monday, 15 November 1999 at 11:01:05 -0800, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Reread/reresponse, sorry- ENOCOFFEE:
>>>
>>>
>
> 1 filemark can not be used for EOT, it is EOF, you can't tell if what you
> read next is another file or not
Bob Bishop wrote:
> At 11:01 am -0800 15/11/99, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> >I repeat what I said in other mail- can you actually show me a tape drive
> >where what I propose really doesn't work?
> BUT I have to say that on principle I'm with Rod on this one: EOF != EOT
> and mixing them up is a recipe
On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> >
> > Okay- I hear you both.
> >
> > What do you do with QIC drives which cannnot write 2FM then?
>
> Can you give me a model of a QIC drive that has the ``can't write 2 FM's''
Just about all. For that matter, it isn't just QIC drives- see all
>
> Okay- I hear you both.
>
> What do you do with QIC drives which cannnot write 2FM then?
Can you give me a model of a QIC drive that has the ``can't write 2 FM's''
and I'll see if I can find one so that I can see this problem first hand
and propose a solution to it. I find it extreamly hard
Okay- I hear you both.
What do you do with QIC drives which cannnot write 2FM then?
On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Bob Bishop wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At 11:01 am -0800 15/11/99, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> >I repeat what I said in other mail- can you actually show me a tape drive
> >where what I propose really do
Hi,
At 11:01 am -0800 15/11/99, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>I repeat what I said in other mail- can you actually show me a tape drive
>where what I propose really doesn't work?
I have access to a few assorted drives and I'll do the experiments but
don't hold your breath.
BUT I have to say that on pri
On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> >
> > Reread/reresponse, sorry- ENOCOFFEE:
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > 1 filemark can not be used for EOT, it is EOF, you can't tell if what you
> > > > read next is another file or not that may have been left by a previosly
> > > > longer usage on
>
> Reread/reresponse, sorry- ENOCOFFEE:
>
>
> > >
> > > 1 filemark can not be used for EOT, it is EOF, you can't tell if what you
> > > read next is another file or not that may have been left by a previosly
> > > longer usage on the tape.
> > >
>
>
> Well, read until *BLANK CHECK* seems t
Reread/reresponse, sorry- ENOCOFFEE:
> >
> > 1 filemark can not be used for EOT, it is EOF, you can't tell if what you
> > read next is another file or not that may have been left by a previosly
> > longer usage on the tape.
> >
Well, read until *BLANK CHECK* seems to be what the driver can
>
> There seems to be a great amount of confusion about the 2 EOF marks on
> tapes. It has nothing to do with physical EOT, even the 556BPI 1/2"
> tape drives on an IBM 1401 can detect physical EOT. The problem is
> with LOGICAL EOT, most tape drives do not have a logical EOT write
> command, e
> The design phase for FreeBSD 4.0 is coming to a close. There are a couple
> of things I'm planning on (belatedly) for the SCSI tape driver. I'd like
> feedback and suggestions about these and other things, so pass 'em my way.
>
> One change I'm thinking about is probably controversial, so I'd l
The design phase for FreeBSD 4.0 is coming to a close. There are a couple
of things I'm planning on (belatedly) for the SCSI tape driver. I'd like
feedback and suggestions about these and other things, so pass 'em my way.
One change I'm thinking about is probably controversial, so I'd like to
get
23 matches
Mail list logo
