Hi,
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 01:24:46PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> I don't seem to have the original post of Richard Fox, so could you please
> specify what "this directive" is in the sentence:
>
> Otherwise, this advice is a little contradictory to the documentation which
> states "On most modern tape drives, you will not need to specify this
> directive.
My apologies, I had sent the message from the wrong address and
cancelled moderation on it. I was hoping nobody would notice.
My original message asked if this discussion was in regard to the
"Maximum block size" (and presumably "Minimum block size") from the
device resource.
"Are you both referring to "Maximum block size" (and presumably "Minimum block
size") from the
Device resource?
If not please ignore the rest of this message. Otherwise, this advice is a
little contradictory
to the documentation which states "On most modern tape drives, you will not
need to specify this
directive.".
More importantly however, the documentation (for Bacula 7.2 anyways) says: "The
maximum
size-in-bytes possible is 2,000,000." which contradicts the assertion that
these can be specified
as 2MB which is not the same thing. Is the documentation inaccurate on
this subject?"
> On 06/01/2017 02:51 PM, Cejka Rudolf wrote:
> > Richard Fox wrote (2017/06/01):
> > > Otherwise, this advice is a little contradictory to the documentation
> > > which states "On most modern tape drives, you will not need to specify
> > > this directive.".
> > Given that Linux with LTO-X tape drive is probably a majority system here
> > (not counting
> > configurations without tape drives), the statement is slightly misleading.
> > I'm convinced
> > that it is really not needed because of tape drive, server nor HBA, but it
> > seems that it
> > is really needed because of Linux. However it is not a real problem,
> > because Linux allows
> > to increase the block size "naturally", with the exception that you have
> > limiting HBA.
> >
> > > More importantly however, the documentation (for Bacula 7.2 anyways)
> > > says: "The maximum size-in-bytes possible is 2,000,000." which
> > > contradicts the assertion that these can be specified as 2MB which is not
> > > the same thing. Is the documentation inaccurate on this subject?
> > I wrote 2 MB as a general recommendation over various manufacturers and
> > software
> > developers, with non-written suggested value 256 KB or 512 KB as max., so
> > please
> > take my 2 MB limit just loosely :o)
Thanks,
Rich.
--
Rich Fox
Systems Administrator
JBPC - Marine Biological Laboratory
rfox AT mbl DOT edu - mbl AT richfox DOT org
508-289-7669
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
|
