Amanda-Users

Re: short write - could that mean that the "use" on holdingdisk is too small?

2005-01-13 11:19:17
Subject: Re: short write - could that mean that the "use" on holdingdisk is too small?
From: Peter Guhl <pgnews AT siconline DOT ch>
To: Amanda Mailingliste <amanda-users AT amanda DOT org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:12:37 +0100
On Fri, 2004-12-31 at 17:09, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 03:02:15PM +0100, Peter Guhl wrote:
> > This error happens all the time - but sometimes it vanishes and then it
> > comes again. Now I have got the idea that the space allocated at the
> > holding disk is too small (not the holding disk itself). The only other
> > explanation is a hardware defect on the DLT Drive but mt and every other
> > diagnosis I tried don't look like that.

> I only see that particular message when the total size of what is being
> taped (all DLE's total size) is greater than the capacity of a single
> tape.  The last DLE that tried to fit on the tape does not, so it gets
> a "short write".  In my case, with multiple tapes per dump, the DLE
> that encountered the end of the tape gets put first onto the next tape.

Therefore it was pure luck when it did fit? The strange thing is that
amflush on the next tape (manually) is causing "short write" too even
though the stuff left at the holding disk is only 5% of the uncompressed
size of the tape (1GB to be written to a 20GB Tape).

That the first backup is too big is possible, but definitely not the
part left on the holding disk!

In one case (the most problematic one currently) the short write always
occurs while saving /var of the backup server itself. Could there be
side effects of the fact that this file system is constantly changing? I
have read soemting about a parameter "-l" but I could not find out
how/where to invoke it and what it's doing.

Regards
   Peter


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>