Author: "Joe Donner (sent by Nabble.com)" <lists AT nabble DOT com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 07:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Dear all, I've just run amtapetype -f /dev/nst0 for Amanda to generate a tapetype definition for an HP Storageworks SDLT 320 tape drive. The results came back as: define tapetype unknown-tapetype { c
Author: Matt Hyclak <hyclak AT math.ohiou DOT edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 10:37:22 -0400
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 07:08:39AM -0700, Joe Donner (sent by Nabble.com) enlightened us: Yes, disable hardware compression. The reason amanda only detected about 135GB of your 160GB tape is because
Not when amtapetype complained about compression being on. It is low by 5 - 15%. It appears you are using a linux version (device is nstX). If a recent release, see if your distro supplies the "stini
Author: "Joe Donner (sent by Nabble.com)" <lists AT nabble DOT com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 08:14:28 -0700 (PDT)
Firstly - thank you for the replies. Secondly - I'm now more confused than before! Is my understanding correct then that I can conceivably use this tapetype definition, but that I probably shouldn't
Author: "Joe Donner (sent by Nabble.com)" <lists AT nabble DOT com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 09:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
Or does it work this way: Amanda sends compressed data to the tape drive. The tape drive also compresses the data, and therefore actually expands it. Amanda doesn't know this. After Amanda has sent 1
Author: Matt Hyclak <hyclak AT math.ohiou DOT edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 12:12:00 -0400
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 08:14:28AM -0700, Joe Donner (sent by Nabble.com) enlightened us: Not at all. 1. Tapes for your tape drive hold 160GB of data. Period. 2. When you try to compress data that is
Your tape holds approximately 160GB of data. Not YOUR data, simply data. Minus maybe marketing exageration and base 10 vs base 2 definitions of GB (1000^3 or 1024^3). Computer scientists have found a
You are fairly close. If talking about amtapetype, it sends random data, uncompressed. Not also, but it does expand it. And yes, amanda doesn't know this. It only measures what it sends. Keep this in
Author: Chris Lee <cslee-list AT cybericom.co DOT uk>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:32:58 +0100
Just to add to the whole tape type thing :) I ran amtapetype on my DLT8000 (40/80GB) using a DLTIV tape. Now I assumed that it should give me a 40GB capacity as I have hardware compression off. But I
... You could have deleted the unrelated message. At first inspection, a 9% difference from expected, I'd guess HW compression was on. But you say no. OK. I think, but am not certain, lots of shoe sh
Author: Paul Bijnens <paul.bijnens AT xplanation DOT com>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 23:23:11 +0200
Chris Lee schreef: Just to add to the whole tape type thing :) I ran amtapetype on my DLT8000 (40/80GB) using a DLTIV tape. Now I assumed that it should give me a 40GB capacity as I have hardware com
I would always claim that when I saw low numbers. But my recently aquired LTO-1, nominally 100GB and thus should measure 94GB, actually measured 101+ amanda GB :) -- Jon H. LaBadie jon AT jgcomp DOT
Author: Chris Lee <cslee-list AT cybericom.co DOT uk>
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 09:01:08 +0100
Thanks all for the input. I think I am happy with the value I get ;) Regards, Chris. Jon LaBadie wrote: On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 11:23:11PM +0200, Paul Bijnens wrote: Chris Lee schreef: Just to add to
Author: "Joe Donner (sent by Nabble.com)" <lists AT nabble DOT com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 02:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
Hmmm blimey...I find it all a bit complicated (but I hope that's due to me being rather new to Linux and Amanda and not me being stupid!). I'll give it another try and some test runs and see how it g