Re: wasted action of taper
2003-05-15 11:04:04
Also Sprach Brian Cuttler:
>
> Couldn't you still recover from amanda tapes if the data where
> written in 'chunksize' bits across more than a single tape ?
>
> I mean, keep the chunks in order so you can find them, append them
> together when writing the tape to limit the amount of reassembly
> work. How are chunks re-assembled by taper now ?
>
> Couldn't we recover with "# dd" and "# cat >>" or would reassemble
> need to be more complex than that ?
>
Unless the tape size estimate was spot on all the time, you'd
still end up with the last chunk on a tape being a fragment
rather than a whole chunk and retrying that chunk again on the next tape.
But that's still not bad, you could check the header on the last chunk on
tape 1 and the first chunk of tape 2 and if they are the same
go with the latter. So taper would have to be rewritten to add a
header per chunk. This would make recovery with standard tools
a bit more painful but you could still do it with dd and cat. And
you could get previous behavior by making the chunk size the same
as the tape size.
----
C. Chan <c-chan AT uchicago DOT edu >
GPG Public Key registered at pgp.mit.edu
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: wasted action of taper, (continued)
- Re: wasted action of taper, Brian Cuttler
- Re: wasted action of taper, Gene Heskett
- Re: wasted action of taper, Brian Cuttler
- Re: wasted action of taper,
C. Chan <=
- Re: wasted action of taper, Eric Siegerman
- Re: wasted action of taper, Joshua Baker-LePain
- Re: wasted action of taper, Gene Heskett
- Re: wasted action of taper, Paul Bijnens
- Re: wasted action of taper, Eric Siegerman
- Re: wasted action of taper, Alexander JOLK
- Re: wasted action of taper, Paul Bijnens
- Re: wasted action of taper, Mitch Collinsworth
- Re: wasted action of taper, Joshua Baker-LePain
- Re: wasted action of taper, Mitch Collinsworth
|
|
|