Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Bacula\-users\]\s+Who\s+is\s+right\s+about\s+the\s+tape\s+size\:\s+Bacula\s+or\s+the\s+tapeloader\?\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Bacula\-users\]\s+Who\s+is\s+right\s+about\s+the\s+tape\s+size\:\s+Bacula\s+or\s+the\s+tapeloader\?\?\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. [Bacula-users] Who is right about the tape size: Bacula or the tapeloader?? (score: 1): Author: Stefan Michael Guenther <s.guenther AT in-put DOT de>; Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 15:08:17 +0200; Hi, we are using a Tandberg autchanger with eight LTO3 tapes, which could save 400/800 GB of data. Herre is the definition of the device in bacula-sd.conf: Device { Name = Drive-1 Media Type = Ultriu; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-09/msg00013.html (13,920 bytes)
2. Re: [Bacula-users] Who is right about the tape size: Bacula or the tapeloader?? (score: 1): Author: John Drescher <drescherjm AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 10:25:39 -0400; Get rid of the Maximum Volume Bytes. 800 GB is not the limit for LTO3. Remember 800GB is just the inflated manufacturer expected capacity when in reality you may fit 400GB on a single tape or 3TB dep; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-09/msg00014.html (15,352 bytes)
3. Re: [Bacula-users] Who is right about the tape size: Bacula or the tapeloader?? (score: 1): Author: François Cabelguen <fcabelguen AT adeuza DOT com>; Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 14:28:40 +0000; Hi, I think this setting is not good "Media Type = Ultrium-LTO3". I have this in my setup: " Media Type = LTO-3". Below is my configuration of my SD: -- Autochanger { Name = Dell-PV124T Device = ULTR; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-09/msg00015.html (16,186 bytes)
4. Re: [Bacula-users] Who is right about the tape size: Bacula or the tapeloader?? (score: 1): Author: John Drescher <drescherjm AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 10:49:27 -0400; Bacula does not care what you have for these as long as they match. You could put dog or cat in them and have it work... John -- Special Offer -- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE! Finally, a world-c; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-09/msg00016.html (13,493 bytes)
5. Re: [Bacula-users] Who is right about the tape size: Bacula or the tapeloader?? (score: 1): Author: Jeremy Maes <jma AT schaubroeck DOT be>; Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 17:00:38 +0200; Op 1/09/2011 16:28, François Cabelguen schreef: Hi, I think this setting is not good "Media Type = Ultrium-LTO3". I have this in my setup: " Media Type = LTO-3". Media type is irrelevant, and; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-09/msg00017.html (15,601 bytes)
6. Re: [Bacula-users] Who is right about the tape size: Bacula or the tapeloader?? (score: 1): Author: Stefan Michael Guenther <s.guenther AT in-put DOT de>; Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 17:31:35 +0200; Hi, here is the corresponding output of dmesg: [ 7.806343] st 3:0:1:0: Attached scsi tape st0 [ 7.806345] st 3:0:1:0: st0: try direct i/o: yes (alignment 512 B) [ 3295.705344] st0: Block limits 1 - 1; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-09/msg00019.html (13,924 bytes)
7. Re: [Bacula-users] Who is right about the tape size: Bacula or the tapeloader?? (score: 1): Author: Alan Brown <ajb2 AT mssl.ucl.ac DOT uk>; Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 17:09:34 +0100; 1: As others have stated, "Maximum Volume Bytes" should not be used on tape volumes. 2: Nor should "Maximum Block Size" - this is imposing significant overheads all by itself and is intended for old-; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-09/msg00020.html (16,396 bytes)
8. Re: [Bacula-users] Who is right about the tape size: Bacula or the tapeloader?? (score: 1): Author: Stefan Michael Guenther <s.guenther AT in-put DOT de>; Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 18:17:06 +0200; Hi Alan, THANKS for the long list of suggestions! It will check this during the next days and hopefully send positive results to the list. Stefan --Ursprüngliche Nachricht-- An: Stefan Michael Guenth; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-09/msg00022.html (17,714 bytes)
9. Re: [Bacula-users] Who is right about the tape size: Bacula or the tapeloader?? (score: 1): Author: Robert Müller <rmueller AT thinxsolutions DOT com>; Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:41:01 +0200; Hi, we had exactly the same Issue with a Quantum LTO3. Surprisingly, "old" tapes filles up to average of 400GB, new ones only to 250GB. First we thought about having a tape-vendor issue, because the; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-09/msg00029.html (19,737 bytes)
10. Re: [Bacula-users] Who is right about the tape size: Bacula or the tapeloader?? (score: 1): Author: Andrea Conti <alyf AT alyf DOT net>; Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2011 09:59:13 +0200; I think your're talking about "Minimum Block Size" here. "Maximum Block Size", on the other hand, does not impose any space overhead as it lets Bacula write blocks of any size *up to* the given valu; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2011-09/msg00036.html (13,763 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 10
Page: [1]