Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning [coming back 2 and a half years later]

Le Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:48:09 +0100 Emmanuel Florac écrivait: > Le Thu, 14 Jan 2016 15:12:53 -0500 (EST) > Laurence Oberman écrivait: > > > All attempts to get my drive and changer firmware updated have > > failed. So I wont be able to add another "tested by" to this thread > > unless I can

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning (LTO-5 firmware upgrade)

Hi, This is just to state that I used the SAS LTO firmware upgrade method Douglas suggested (1 year ago) and it worked fine, upgrading an HPE LTO-5 Ultrium 3000 internal SAS tape drive from a .frm / .E file. Best regards, -- Jérôme PS: It took me a while to find a way to get the latest

Re: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

hane M Seymour" <shane.seym...@hpe.com> Cc: "Laurence Oberman" <lober...@redhat.com>, "Emmanuel Florac" <eflo...@intellique.com>, "Laurence Oberman" <oberma...@gmail.com>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 1:09:30

Re: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

> On 4.2.2016, at 3.43, Seymour, Shane M wrote: > > Hi Kai, > > Tested with patched kernel 4.5.0-rc2-next-20160202+. It's looking good > everything partition related passed with DDS5 and LTO6. You can definitely > add me as a tested-by. I did find one issue below but

Re: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Le Thu, 4 Feb 2016 19:54:55 +0200 "Kai Mäkisara (Kolumbus)" écrivait: > > Tested with patched kernel 4.5.0-rc2-next-20160202+. It's looking > > good everything partition related passed with DDS5 and LTO6. You > > can definitely add me as a tested-by. I did find one

Re: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Hi, With a HP Ultrium 3000 tape drive (LTO-5) and a HP C7975A tape cartridge (LTO-5 and partition capable) and mt as patched by Shane: # lsscsi -g [1:0:0:0] diskATAST3320620AS K /dev/sda /dev/sg0 [6:0:0:0] tapeHP Ultrium 5-SCSI Z64D /dev/st0 /dev/sg1 #

RE: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

On Wednesday 2016-02-03 04:18, Seymour, Shane M wrote: ...> ># mt -f /dev/st2 mkpartition 200G > >Fails and doesn't print all of the messages related for partitioning: > >[ 3514.306582] st 8:0:0:0: [st2] Block limits 1 - 16777215 bytes. >[ 3514.307126] st 8:0:0:0: [st2] Mode sense. Length 11,

Re: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

man" <lober...@redhat.com>, "Emmanuel Florac" <eflo...@intellique.com>, "Laurence Oberman" <oberma...@gmail.com>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 1:43:26 PM Subject: Re: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Wa

RE: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Hi Kai, I've done more tested. Some stuff didn't work and I've got some suggested changes (there are two changes to the patch and one for the mt command). Testing results first: # echo 1 > /sys/bus/scsi/drivers/st/debug_flag # mt -f /dev/st2 stsetoption can-partitions # mt -f /dev/st1

Re: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

ober...@redhat.com>, "Emmanuel Florac" <eflo...@intellique.com>, "Laurence Oberman" <oberma...@gmail.com>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 1:43:26 PM Subject: Re: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem

RE: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Laurence Oberman; linux- > s...@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: > Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning > > > > On 1.2.2016, at 8.31, Seymour, Shane M <shane.seym...@hpe.com> > wrote: > > >

Re: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

> On 1.2.2016, at 8.31, Seymour, Shane M wrote: > > Hi Kai, > > Thanks for the changes the HPE DAT72 DDS5 drive now works as expected: > Good. Thanks for testing. ... > > I'm asking around again one final time to see if I can lay my hands on a LTO5 > or greater drive

RE: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

gt; s...@vger.kernel.org > Subject: RE: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: > Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning > > On Friday 2016-01-29 01:12, Seymour, Shane M wrote: > > >Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 01:12:41 > >From: "Seymour, Shan

Re: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

> On 28.1.2016, at 9.36, Seymour, Shane M wrote: > > Hi Kai, > > With the changes the I get a failure partitioning a HP DAT72 drive (DDS-5): > > # ./mt -f /dev/st1 stsetoption debug > # ./mt -f /dev/st1 stsetoption can-partitions > # ./mt -f /dev/st1 mkpartition 1000 >

Re: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

> On 27.1.2016, at 1.35, Seymour, Shane M wrote: > > Hi Emmanuel, > >> Hmm in fact if we keep using MB we'll be stuck when tapes reach ~2 PB >> which leaves some time to think about it, until LTO-15 circa 2036 :) > > There will be other issues to solve before then (by

Re: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

<shane.seym...@hpe.com> Cc: "Laurence Oberman" <lober...@redhat.com>, "Emmanuel Florac" <eflo...@intellique.com>, "Laurence Oberman" <oberma...@gmail.com>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 12:04:20 PM Subject: Re: What

Re: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

;oberma...@gmail.com>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 6:23:13 PM Subject: Re: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning On My DAT tape with the latest patch [root@srp-server ~]# cat /sys/class/scsi_t

Re: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

man" <lober...@redhat.com>, "Emmanuel Florac" <eflo...@intellique.com>, "Laurence Oberman" <oberma...@gmail.com>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 6:12:41 PM Subject: RE: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was:

RE: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Emmanuel Florac; Laurence Oberman; linux- > s...@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: > Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning > > > > On 28.1.2016, at 9.36, Seymour, Shane M <shane.seym...@hpe.com> > wr

Re: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

> On 28.1.2016, at 21.21, Laurence Oberman wrote: > > Hi Kai > > What kernel was the last patch you attached against. > It was against the latest git version from Jan 24 evening (Finnish time). It is 4.4.0 plus from 4.5 merge window. The patch applies to 3.18.25 with

RE: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: > Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning > > Meant to mention, still waiting for my new LTO5, also this is the first time I > am testing the DAT72. > > Shane, have you had the DAT working before this last pa

Re: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Le Thu, 28 Jan 2016 19:31:10 +0200 "Kai Mäkisara (Kolumbus)" écrivait: > > On 27.1.2016, at 1.35, Seymour, Shane M > > wrote: > > > > Hi Emmanuel, > > > >> Hmm in fact if we keep using MB we'll be stuck when tapes reach ~2 > >> PB which

RE: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

day, January 25, 2016 8:05 AM > To: Seymour, Shane M > Cc: Laurence Oberman; Emmanuel Florac; Laurence Oberman; linux- > s...@vger.kernel.org > Subject: RE: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: > Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning > > On

RE: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Hi Emmanuel, > Hmm in fact if we keep using MB we'll be stuck when tapes reach ~2 PB > which leaves some time to think about it, until LTO-15 circa 2036 :) There will be other issues to solve before then (by LTO-9 2 with compression or LTO-10 without compression and we're at LTO-7 now). Take tar

Re: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Le Sun, 24 Jan 2016 23:05:17 +0200 (EET) Kai Makisara écrivait: > Below is a test patch that implements the current behaviour with > non-negative argument (but works with LTOs etc.) and makes partition > zero size absolute value of argument (MB) if argument is

RE: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

gt; To: Seymour, Shane M >> Cc: Laurence Oberman; Emmanuel Florac; Laurence Oberman; linux- >> s...@vger.kernel.org >> Subject: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: >> st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning >> ... >> >> Th

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

t; <oberma...@gmail.com>, "Kai Makisara" <kai.makis...@kolumbus.fi>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 11:07:20 AM Subject: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning Le Wed, 6 Jan 2016 10:23:34 -0500 (EST) Laurence Oberman <lober...@redha

Re: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Ooops, fat finger posting before I've finished answering... Le Fri, 22 Jan 2016 02:10:03 + "Seymour, Shane M" écrivait: > > > > There seem to be lot of arguments supporting both possible choices. > > Should we use the existing definition (1) or change it for the > >

Re: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Le Fri, 22 Jan 2016 02:10:03 + "Seymour, Shane M" écrivait: > > However, before making the final patch, we should decide which > > partition the specified size should apply to. For the SCSI level > > <=2 it applies to partition 1. For other drives we may have some > >

What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

> On 15.1.2016, at 2.21, Seymour, Shane M wrote: > > Unfortunately I'm unable to lay my hands on an LTO 5 tape drive so I'm not > able to test that it works either. If it helps at all I can test in the > negative and make sure that for an LTO 3 drive it fails gracefully

Re: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

; Cc: "Laurence Oberman" <lober...@redhat.com>, "Emmanuel Florac" <eflo...@intellique.com>, "Laurence Oberman" <oberma...@gmail.com>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 3:58:46 PM Subject: What partition should the MTMKPART

RE: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Laurence Oberman; linux- > s...@vger.kernel.org > Subject: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: > st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning > > > > On 15.1.2016, at 2.21, Seymour, Shane M <shane.seym...@hpe.com> > wrote: > > > &

RE: What partition should the MTMKPART argument specify? Was: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

My applogies: > It may be worth noting (if you're going to update any documentation) that > isn't 100% accurate. You actually get one wrap in partition 1 and the rest > minus one wrap into partition 0. There is one wrap used as a guard between > the two partitions. The size given to a partition

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Florac" <eflo...@intellique.com> Cc: "Laurence Oberman" <oberma...@gmail.com>, "Kai Makisara" <kai.makis...@kolumbus.fi>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 10:48:44 AM Subject: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Le Wed, 6 Jan 2016 10:23:34 -0500 (EST) Laurence Oberman écrivait: > MaxPartitions: 0 > > Drive is working fine, > > # mt -f /dev/st0 status > SCSI 2 tape drive: > File number=0, block number=0, partition=0. > Tape block size 512 bytes. Density code 0x58 (no translation).

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Le Wed, 6 Jan 2016 17:10:15 +0100 Emmanuel Florac écrivait: > Works OK with LTO-5 (HP). Sizing the partitions is quite difficult, as > you can see. To get one "wrap" in the first partition, "140" and > "1424000" work, but "145" doesn't. Same for LTO-6 (I'm still >

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

quot; <lober...@redhat.com> Cc: "Laurence Oberman" <oberma...@gmail.com>, "Kai Makisara" <kai.makis...@kolumbus.fi>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 10:10:49 AM Subject: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

rma...@gmail.com>, "Kai Makisara" <kai.makis...@kolumbus.fi>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 10:25:37 AM Subject: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning I left the log of the failure to partition out Here it is # mt -f /dev/nst0 mkpartition

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

ac" <eflo...@intellique.com> Cc: "Laurence Oberman" <oberma...@gmail.com>, "Kai Makisara" <kai.makis...@kolumbus.fi>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 10:25:37 AM Subject: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning I l

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Le Mon, 4 Jan 2016 12:46:26 +0100 Emmanuel Florac écrivait: > That works fine for me. I'm going to do some testing with other drives > I have (LTO-3 -- should fail -- and LTO-5). > Works OK with LTO-5 (HP). Sizing the partitions is quite difficult, as you can see. To

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Le Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:55:04 -0500 (EST) Laurence Oberman écrivait: > mt -f /dev/nst0 mkpartition 1 > What is the type of drive exactly? I still couldn't test with the LTO-5 drive as the machine it's connected to is being reinstalled. --

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 10:23:34 AM Subject: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning Hello Emanuel I am using this device, its an Ultrium 5 (LTO5) Its an older changer and I am unable to update the firmware, still working on that. What v

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Le Mon, 4 Jan 2016 12:22:34 +0200 (EET) Kai Makisara écrivait: > The patch has been tested with my DDS-4 drive. Oh BTW, may be you could correct this one while you're at it :) I don't think my kernel is so old... :) ~# mt -f /dev/st0 stshowopt Your kernel (3.18.25)

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

, 2016 at 6:46 AM Subject: Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning To: Kai Makisara <kai.makis...@kolumbus.fi> Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Le Mon, 4 Jan 2016 12:22:34 +0200 (EET) Kai Makisara <kai.makis...@kolumbus.fi> écrivait: > Here is again a new version of the

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Le Mon, 4 Jan 2016 12:22:34 +0200 (EET) Kai Makisara écrivait: > >In the HP LTFS sources I found an interesting detail: the code does > >LOAD before unformatting. A comment says that it is in some cases > >better method to put the position to beginning of partition 0

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

On Thursday 2015-12-31 18:08, "Kai Mäkisara (Kolumbus)" wrote: ... >In the HP LTFS sources I found an interesting detail: the code does LOAD >before unformatting. >A comment says that it is in some cases better method to put the position to >beginning of >partition 0 than other methods. You

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Le Mon, 4 Jan 2016 12:22:34 +0200 (EET) Kai Makisara écrivait: > >In the HP LTFS sources I found an interesting detail: the code does > >LOAD before unformatting. A comment says that it is in some cases > >better method to put the position to beginning of partition 0

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Le Mon, 4 Jan 2016 12:22:34 +0200 (EET) Kai Makisara écrivait: > Here is again a new version of the patch. This does load before > partitioning. The code performing default partitioning (FDP=1) has > also been slightly modified (two more bits of the original mode page

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Le Mon, 4 Jan 2016 10:08:44 -0500 Laurence Oberman écrivait: > I am back at work with access to my tape changer today. Will pull the > patches and help test as well. > I assume I need to apply both patches, the earlier one and this > latest one. > No only the latest one.

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

> On 30.12.2015, at 23.24, Emmanuel Florac wrote: > > Le Wed, 30 Dec 2015 21:21:47 +0200 > "Kai Mäkisara (Kolumbus)" écrivait: > >> This happens if the position is not at the beginning of partition 0. >> Could you try to switch to partition 0:

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

On Tuesday 2015-12-29 20:13, Emmanuel Florac wrote: ... >It works when providing the size : > ># mt -f /dev/nst0 mkpartition 36764 > Good. I think I found out why it did not work with the default format. At the end of this message you find a new patch that should correct that. There are also

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Le Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:54:01 +0200 (EET) Kai Makisara écrivait: > I think I found out why it did not work with the default format. At > the end of this message you find a new patch that should correct > that. There are also other changes: > - some changes when

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Le Wed, 30 Dec 2015 21:21:47 +0200 "Kai Mäkisara (Kolumbus)" écrivait: > This happens if the position is not at the beginning of partition 0. > Could you try to switch to partition 0: > mt -f /dev/nst0 setpartition 0 > mt -f /dev/nst0 status > > and the retry

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Le Tue, 29 Dec 2015 19:46:11 +0200 "Kai Mäkisara (Kolumbus)" écrivait: > It seems that you have not told the st driver that your drive knows > partitions. One way to set the options is to use the stint program > and proper definitions. You can also use mtst -f /dev/nst0

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Le Fri, 25 Dec 2015 17:53:46 +0200 (EET) Kai Makisara écrivait: > the patch implements the following: if the > size is 1, the driver tells the drive to use default partitioning for > two partitions. For the HP Ultrium this should result in partition 0 > of 1425 GB and

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Le Fri, 25 Dec 2015 17:53:46 +0200 (EET) Kai Makisara écrivait: > The patch uses the scsi level of the device to separate processing. > The FORMAT MEDIUM command is defined in SCSI-3 and I suppose that no > current drive is still SCSI-2. In addition to the "sane"

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

> On 29.12.2015, at 18.59, Emmanuel Florac wrote: > > Le Fri, 25 Dec 2015 17:53:46 +0200 (EET) > Kai Makisara écrivait: > >> the patch implements the following: if the >> size is 1, the driver tells the drive to use default partitioning for

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Le Fri, 25 Dec 2015 17:53:46 +0200 (EET) Kai Makisara écrivait: > The patch uses the scsi level of the device to separate processing. > The FORMAT MEDIUM command is defined in SCSI-3 and I suppose that no > current drive is still SCSI-2. In addition to the "sane"

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

> On 29.12.2015, at 18.58, Emmanuel Florac wrote: > > Le Fri, 25 Dec 2015 17:53:46 +0200 (EET) > Kai Makisara écrivait: > >> The patch uses the scsi level of the device to separate processing. >> The FORMAT MEDIUM command is defined in SCSI-3

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

On Monday 2015-12-21 20:57, "Kai Mäkisara (Kolumbus)" wrote: ... >I can look at the manuals during Christmas holidays and try to think about a >suggestion. >All other suggestions are, of course, welcome. My view may be somewhat >theoretical >because I don’t have access to current hardware. > I

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Le Fri, 25 Dec 2015 17:53:46 +0200 (EET) Kai Makisara écrivait: > The patch at the end of this message is an attempt to make the > partitioning work for both old and new drives. The patch is against > st.c from the current git kernel, although I have tested it in

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Le Tue, 22 Dec 2015 05:51:30 + "Seymour, Shane M" écrivait: > If you need help with anything please let me know I'd be more than > happy to contribute (with testing and a review if you want). I have a > system with an older LTO-3 tape drive that I can use any time (it

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

I am just waiting on some LTO5 tape cartridges and then will start working on this. I only have LTO cartridges so had to order a couple of LTO5's On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 5:04 AM, Emmanuel Florac wrote: > Le Tue, 22 Dec 2015 02:20:31 -0500 > Laurence Oberman

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Le Tue, 22 Dec 2015 02:20:31 -0500 Laurence Oberman écrivait: > I also have access to newer hardware if needed. I have started > reviewing all of this and will post back to this thread. > Emmanuel can you summarize what you would like to achieve and we will > all work on

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

> On 21.12.2015, at 19.57, Emmanuel Florac wrote: > > Le Mon, 21 Dec 2015 19:25:27 +0200 > "Kai Mäkisara (Kolumbus)" écrivait: > >>> >>> I'm replying to myself: this is very obviously a limitation of the >>> st driver. Checking st.c

RE: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

If you need help with anything please let me know I'd be more than happy to contribute (with testing and a review if you want). I have a system with an older LTO-3 tape drive that I can use any time (it doesn’t support partitioning so if nothing else I can make sure partitioning attempts fail

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Le Fri, 18 Dec 2015 17:06:44 +0100 Emmanuel Florac écrivait: > > I'm trying to use mt to work with LTO-5 and bigger tapes. Switching > partitions works: > > # tapeinfo -f /dev/sg1 > Product Type: Tape Drive > Vendor ID: 'HP ' > Product ID: 'Ultrium 5-SCSI ' >

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

> On 21.12.2015, at 14.46, Emmanuel Florac wrote: > > Le Fri, 18 Dec 2015 17:06:44 +0100 > Emmanuel Florac écrivait: > >> >> I'm trying to use mt to work with LTO-5 and bigger tapes. Switching >> partitions works: >> >> # tapeinfo -f /dev/sg1

Re: st driver doesn't seem to grok LTO partitioning

Le Mon, 21 Dec 2015 11:20:55 -0500 Laurence Oberman écrivait: > The st driver gets a lot of attention actually. Let me look into this > and get back you. I've found that the IBM tape driver (lin_tape) implements neat ioctls for LTO and 3592 tape partitionning. Just in case.