Amanda-Users

Re: DDS-3 tapetype ???

2005-06-17 11:21:12
Subject: Re: DDS-3 tapetype ???
From: Michael D Schleif <mds AT helices DOT org>
To: amanda mailing list <amanda-users AT amanda DOT org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:04:59 -0500
* Paul Bijnens <paul.bijnens AT xplanation DOT com> [2005:06:17:09:51:48+0200] 
scribed:
> Michael D Schleif wrote:
> >Since the tape drive change, I have wondered why I didn't seem to be
> >getting all the data on some tapes.  Clearly, with Amanda, some days it
> >just doesn't want to send a full 12GB to tape; but, mostly, I have been
> >seeing <9GB going to tape, and balance sitting in holdingdisk.
> >
> >Today, I did this:
> >
> >    # time sudo -u backup amtapetype -e 12g -f /dev/nst0 -o
> >    Writing 32 Mbyte   compresseable data:  37 sec
> >    Writing 32 Mbyte uncompresseable data:  35 sec
> 
> I'm pretty sure that your hardware compression is indeed off.
> Otherwise you would have a very large speed difference in writing
> uncompressed or compressed data, that is tested here.   It would
> be twice or three times as fast, instead of only 2 seconds difference.

Yes, indeed.  I also tried this:

    # sudo /bin/mt -f /dev/nst0 compression 1

    # sudo /bin/mt -f /dev/nst0 defcompression 1

    # sudo -u backup amtapetype -c -f /dev/nst0 -o
    Writing 1024 Mbyte   compresseable data:  384 sec
    Writing 1024 Mbyte uncompresseable data:  1318 sec
    WARNING: Tape drive has hardware compression enabled
    Estimated time to write 2 * 1024 Mbyte: 2636 sec = 0 h 43 min

> >    Estimated time to write 2 * 12288 Mbyte: 26880 sec = 7 h 28 min
> >    wrote 298832 32Kb blocks in 76 files in 10632 seconds (short write)
> >    wrote 310628 32Kb blocks in 158 files in 10840 seconds (short write)
> 
> These two lines are actually a little strange.  I would have expected
> that the second pass wrote a little bit less then the first pass (and
> the difference is the space taken up by the additional filemarks).
> 
> But you seem to write more in the second pass.  Even 400 Mbyte.
> In previous version of amtapetype, this would be reported as a negative
> filemark size of -4603 Mbyte (the granularity of measuring is 32K).

In lieu of else to chase, how can this happen?  Is this strangeness a
bad thing?  How can I find the root cause?

> What actually happened is that in the first pass, there was a hard write
> error, interpreted as an end-of-tape.
> This is a symptom of an almost bad tape or tapedrive or dusty heads.
> Some OS's report an excessive soft-error rate in the kernel messages.
> Do you find anything like that in /var/log/messages?

No, there are no errors under /var/log/ for the tape drive.  The tape I
am using for this was brand new, unsealed yesterday, solely for this
test.  It is a hp dds-3 c5708a.

> >    define tapetype unknown-tapetype {
> >        comment "just produced by tapetype prog (hardware compression off)"
> 
> I'm pretty sure that your hardware compression is indeed off.
> Otherwise you would have a very large speed difference in writing
> uncompressed or compressed data, that is tested here.

Yes, in recent versions of amtapetype, it actually puts it in the
comment, as above.

> >        length 9522 mbytes
> >        filemark 0 kbytes
> >        speed 908 kps
> >    }

I would be more willing to consider hardware problems on my side, if it
weren't for several extenuating circumstances:

[1] Amanda FAQ-O-Matic shows other people ending with same results; but,
    I have not found documented resolution.

[2] All of my tapes in circulation have been reporting short lengths in
    the `Tape Size (meg)' report field.  Prior to replacing the tape
    drive, these same tapes were better filled, according to these
    reports.

[3] I clean the tape drive once (1x) per week.  I do not notice any
    unusual lights/LED's while the tape drive is working.

[4] I have successfully restored from these tapes, and using this same
    tape drive, on several occasions.


Just for clarification, the brand on the tape drive is Compaq; but, the
only SDT-9000 I find on Google is the Sony brand; therefore, I assume
that Compaq is private branding the Sony drives.

What else can I do?

What do you think?

-- 
Best Regards,

mds
mds resource
877.596.8237
-
Dare to fix things before they break . . .
-
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much
we think we know.  The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .
--

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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