On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 08:23:57AM -0400, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 at 10:59pm, up AT 3 DOT am wrote
> 
> >Here's the complete report, now that it finally finished:
> >
> >su-2.05a$ amtapetype -f /dev/nrsa0
> >Writing 256 Mbyte   compresseable data:  92 sec
> >Writing 256 Mbyte uncompresseable data:  90 sec
> >Estimated time to write 2 * 1024 Mbyte: 720 sec = 0 h 12 min
> >wrote 763218 32Kb blocks in 2334 files in 13153 seconds (short write)
> >wrote 757298 32Kb blocks in 4646 files in 20125 seconds (short write)
> >define tapetype unknown-tapetype {
> >   comment "just produced by tapetype prog (hardware compression off)"
> >   length 24034 mbytes
> >   filemark 81 kbytes
> >   speed 1530 kps
> >}
> >
> >Does this mean that this 35GB uncompressed tape is only yeilding 24GB?
> 
> Yep, which means it's not an amanda issue.  And I have no idea why it's 
> doing that.   Good luck with it.  ;)
> 

24GB, that is just about where it ran out during amdump too.

I've no idea either; just a possible coincidence.

In my tapechart DLT IV tape is shown as 1800 inches long
while DLT III tape is 1200 inches long.
That ratio , 1200/1800 is pretty close to the
24GB (observed)/35GB (expected) ratio.

Any chance these are just short tapes?

For all I know about DLT, the physical cartridge may have
changed between DLT III and DLT IV so my question is silly.

I note your speed is pretty low compared to my chart listing,
1.5 vs 5.0 MB/sec.  Is DLT capacity affected by slow feed?

-- 
Jon H. LaBadie                  jon AT jgcomp DOT com
 JG Computing
 4455 Province Line Road        (609) 252-0159
 Princeton, NJ  08540-4322      (609) 683-7220 (fax)