Hi!

Am Mo, 2003-11-24 um 23.30 schrieb Eric Siegerman:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 09:46:31AM +0100, Martin Oehler wrote:
> > Hmm, the only option that sounds like it could speed up the [amtapetype] 
> > process
> > is blocksize. Does anyone know a good value for this? 
> 
> The same value as amdump will be using!  With some tape
> technologies, the tape's capacity depends very much on the block
> size.  In such a case, using a different block size for the test
> would give misleading results.

Ok.


> On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 10:28:38AM +0100, Martin Oehler wrote:
> > My second problem is how to handle the "short write"?
> > I have to send in the tape, but the are 3-4 GB of data on this tape.
> > Without this data, my backup is inconsistent. The only possibility
> > I see (at the moment) is doing a full backup of the partitions having
> > some data on this tape.
> 
> That's one possibility.  You can use "amadmin force", staging the
> full backups over a few runs if necessary to fit them in.
> Another possibility would be to wait a tapecycle (or at the very
> least a dumpcycle) for the backups to expire on their own.
> (Don't forget to erase the tape before sending it back, if it
> contains anything confidential.)

I plan to use an new tape that's tested and dump the data from the
damaged tape to the new one. This way I still have the incremental 
backups and don't lose a tape in my tape order. I have to admit that
my paranoia urged me to do full backups on the affected partitions. ;)

Thanks for your advice,
Martin Öhler