Re: FreeBSD 4.0 SCSI Tape Driver- Okay, Okay, you win....

1999-11-20 Thread J Wunsch
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

Re: FreeBSD 4.0 SCSI Tape Driver

1999-11-20 Thread J Wunsch
"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 BOM

Re: FreeBSD 4.0 SCSI Tape Driver- Okay, Okay, you win....

1999-11-20 Thread Matthew Jacob
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 right, and i'm

Re: FreeBSD 4.0 SCSI Tape Driver

1999-11-17 Thread John Polstra
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 mention the fact

Re: FreeBSD 4.0 SCSI Tape Driver

1999-11-16 Thread Greg Lehey
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 that may have been left by a

Re: FreeBSD 4.0 SCSI Tape Driver

1999-11-16 Thread Greg Lehey
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 LOGICAL

Re: FreeBSD 4.0 SCSI Tape Driver

1999-11-16 Thread Matthew Jacob
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

Re: FreeBSD 4.0 SCSI Tape Driver

1999-11-16 Thread Matthew Jacob
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? What about

Re: FreeBSD 4.0 SCSI Tape Driver- Okay, Okay, you win....

1999-11-16 Thread Matthew Jacob
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

Re: FreeBSD 4.0 SCSI Tape Driver- Okay, Okay, you win....

1999-11-16 Thread Greg Lehey
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

Re: FreeBSD 4.0 SCSI Tape Driver- Okay, Okay, you win....

1999-11-16 Thread Matthew Jacob
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 the correct

Re: FreeBSD 4.0 SCSI Tape Driver- Okay, Okay, you win....

1999-11-16 Thread Rodney W. Grimes
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

FreeBSD 4.0 SCSI Tape Driver

1999-11-15 Thread Matthew Jacob
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

Re: FreeBSD 4.0 SCSI Tape Driver

1999-11-15 Thread Rodney W. Grimes
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

Re: FreeBSD 4.0 SCSI Tape Driver

1999-11-15 Thread Matthew Jacob
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, even

Re: FreeBSD 4.0 SCSI Tape Driver

1999-11-15 Thread Matthew Jacob
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 and

Re: FreeBSD 4.0 SCSI Tape Driver

1999-11-15 Thread Rodney W. Grimes
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

Re: FreeBSD 4.0 SCSI Tape Driver

1999-11-15 Thread Matthew Jacob
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 the tape.

Re: FreeBSD 4.0 SCSI Tape Driver

1999-11-15 Thread Bob Bishop
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

Re: FreeBSD 4.0 SCSI Tape Driver

1999-11-15 Thread Matthew Jacob
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 doesn't

Re: FreeBSD 4.0 SCSI Tape Driver

1999-11-15 Thread Rodney W. Grimes
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 to

Re: FreeBSD 4.0 SCSI Tape Driver

1999-11-15 Thread Matthew Jacob
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 the quirk

Re: FreeBSD 4.0 SCSI Tape Driver

1999-11-15 Thread Frank Mayhar
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 for