Phil Homewood wrote:
> Inconclusive. The email reported an 81.5% ratio where
> the printout claimed 81.7. Close, but no cigar... I
> think I'll wait and see what tonight's run does...
The compression ratio on my 2.4.4p2 box printed
correctly. I think this was purely coincidental.
The 2.4.4p3 box
Phil Homewood wrote:
> We'll see what happens in tonight's run with 2.4.4p3 :-)
Inconclusive. The email reported an 81.5% ratio where
the printout claimed 81.7. Close, but no cigar... I
think I'll wait and see what tonight's run does...
--
Phil Homewood, Systems Janitor, http://www.SnapGear.com
[
Paul Bijnens wrote:
> >Upgraded one box to 2.4.4p3. amreport still shows the
> >bogus labels when run against a log generated under
> >2.4.4p2. Tonight I'll see what it does when it creates
> >the log itself. :-)
>
> Do you mean you upgraded a client? Just the amanda server is fine.
> The 2.4.4p3
Phil Homewood wrote:
Upgraded one box to 2.4.4p3. amreport still shows the
bogus labels when run against a log generated under
2.4.4p2. Tonight I'll see what it does when it creates
the log itself. :-)
Do you mean you upgraded a client? Just the amanda server is fine.
The 2.4.4p3 server is compati
Paul Bijnens wrote:
> Mine are correct -- running 2.4.4p3.
> The oldest postscript labels I have near to me, are from
> the 2.4.4p2-200405010 snapshot and they are fine too.
I'm guessing something a little odd with my config, then.
> Try upgrading.
Upgraded one box to 2.4.4p3. amreport still sho
Phil Homewood wrote:
Anyone else seeing the "Compression Ratio" as printed on
paper (postscript) labels being wildly inaccurate under
2.4.4p2?
An example, transcribed from last night's dump:
Total Size: 19547.7 MB
Tape Used (%) 63.1 %
Compression Ratio: 254.9 %
Mine a
Hi,
Anyone else seeing the "Compression Ratio" as printed on
paper (postscript) labels being wildly inaccurate under
2.4.4p2?
An example, transcribed from last night's dump:
Total Size: 19547.7 MB
Tape Used (%) 63.1 %
Compression Ratio: 254.9 %
however, the emaile
