Jon LaBadie wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 12:18:59PM +0000, Mike Brodbelt wrote:
> 
> 
> If you are refering to the report you showed in your original posting,
> that was the size of data dumped, not taped.
> 
> == Dump Time (hrs:min)        6:39       6:39       0:00
> == Output Size (meg)       31855.4    31855.4        0.0
> == Original Size (meg)     66922.0    66922.0        0.0
> == Avg Compressed Size (%)    47.6       47.6        --
> == Filesystems Dumped           16         16          0
> == Avg Dump Rate (k/s)      1362.4     1362.4        --
> 
> Other rows you did not show would give the amount of data "successfully" 
> taped.

Yes - rather less:-

Tape Time (hrs:min)        0:35       0:35       0:00
Tape Size (meg)          8461.0     8461.0        0.0
Tape Used (%)              24.2       24.2        0.0
Filesystems Taped            15         15          0
Avg Tp Write Rate (k/s)  4179.2     4179.2        --

> Your later posting showed the amount actually taped when the error occured:
> 
> == taper: tape ACU-STD-2 kb 23940992 fm 16 writing file: Input/output error
> 
> Only 23.94 GB and 16 filemarks when the error occured.  Hardly 30.5 GB.

23.94 Gb is the size of the compressed dump image for the single large
filesystem that failed to tape. 16 filesystems dumped, but only 15 taped
successfully.

The previous poster suggested that my hardware was faulty due to the I/O
error. AFAIK, it's working OK, which is why I was looking for
clarification on that. ISTM that the error above, combined with the "out
of tape" line at the top of the report make it reasonable to assume that
the I/O error was just amanda hitting EOT when she thought there should
still be tape left. I suspect this is due to my having lifted the
tapetype definition from the FAQ-o-matic originally, and the size in the
tapetype being over-optimistic. Is that a reasonable interpretation, or
should I be pulling the machine to bits looking for dodgy connectors?

> Tapetype is a separate program and could be compiled and used without
> installation of the newer version of amanda.

That's probably my best option - hopefully by having a more accurate
tape-size, I could avoid any more of these errors. I've forced a level 0
on that filesystem tonight, which I hope will work, as the remaining
filesystems should be on a level 1 tonight.

Mike.