Alex Chekholko wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 11:11:49 +1200
> Craig Miskell <craig.miskell AT opus.co DOT nz> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> It looks like I need to beef up "Maximum Block Size" to get good
>> performance out of our LTO-4 tape drives.
>>
>> Before I do, I'd like to know what effect this has on restoring from backups
>> taken with the default block size. Will I
>> need to modify the Device configuration back to it's default setting to be
>> able to restore from those tapes, or will
>> Bacula figure out what it needs to do?
>>
>
> I believe it is the former.
>
> I did same thing (upped 'Maximum Block Size" for LTO-4 performance) but
> didn't test any restores from the tapes written with the old block
> size. And eventually they were recycled.
Thanks.
Does anyone have any experience with using bextract on a tape written with
non-default block sizes, or indication that
it will/won't work? There's nothing in the bootstrap file, or command line
arguments to bextract, that looks like it
could be used to define the block size, and by definition there isn't any
storage daemon (nor necessarily any SD config
files) available at that point.
I see bextract as an excellent near-bare metal recovery tool, but it would suck
if it only works on default block sizes.
Ta,
--
Craig Miskell
Senior Systems Administrator
Opus International Consultants
Phone: +64 4 471 7209
> Why do I have to justify a system change to someone who is
> barely aware that "their" computer doesn't contain a magic elf
> who can draw pictures very fast and in reverse?
Because they're the ones holding the check-signing pen.
- Satya P, on A.S.R
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
|
