1, block 38947409
Wrote 2501585797120 bytes at 154519 kb/sec
Writing smaller files (25015844864 bytes) to determine filemark.
define tapetype unknown-tapetype {
comment "Created by amtapetype; compression disabled"
length 2442954880 k
On Wednesday, 25.06.2014 at 11:37 +0200, Sven Rudolph wrote:
> [...]
>
> One more reason for using amtapetype: It gives you some basic testing
> of your new hardware and configuration.
It's also worth running amtapetype more than once, with different tapes
(and different drives, if you have more
Steven Backus writes:
> I'm setting up a Storageloader 3 LTO 6 and was wondering if anyone
> had a tapetype for this. Thanks.
Use amtapetype. From amtapetype(8):
NAME
amtapetype - generate a tapetype definition by testing the device
directly
SYNOPSIS
amt
I'm setting up a Storageloader 3 LTO 6 and was wondering if anyone
had a tapetype for this. Thanks.
Steve
--
Steven J. BackusComputer Systems Manager
University of Utah E-Mail: steven.bac...@utah.edu
Genetic EpidemiologyAlte
, Jan 28, 2014 at 05:54:21PM -0500, Michael Stauffer wrote:
> > Tom and Jon, thanks for the great replies. I'm just getting back to this
> > project again.
> >
> > I've tried this
> >
> > amtapetype -f -b 524288 -t IBM-ULTRIUM-TD5 /de
. I'm just getting back to this
>> project again.
>>
>> I've tried this
>>
>>amtapetype -f -b 524288 -t IBM-ULTRIUM-TD5 /dev/sg2 2>&1 | tee
>> tapetype-ultrium-512k-block
>>
>> and get this
>>
>> amtapetype: Error wr
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 05:54:21PM -0500, Michael Stauffer wrote:
> Tom and Jon, thanks for the great replies. I'm just getting back to this
> project again.
>
> I've tried this
>
>amtapetype -f -b 524288 -t IBM-ULTRIUM-TD5 /dev/sg2 2>&1 | tee
> tapetyp
288 -t IBM-ULTRIUM-TD5 /dev/sg2 2>&1 | tee
tapetype-ultrium-512k-block
and get this
amtapetype: Error writing label 'amtapetype-1614155207': File
/dev/sg2 is not a tape device at /usr/sbin/amtapetype line 93.
I figure I need to define a tape device that includes /dev/s
Tom and Jon, thanks for the great replies. I'm just getting back to this
project again.
I've tried this
amtapetype -f -b 524288 -t IBM-ULTRIUM-TD5 /dev/sg2 2>&1 | tee
tapetype-ultrium-512k-block
and get this
amtapetype: Error writing label 'amtapetype-1614155207&#x
pes
>>
>> Can someone point me to a source for this, or to where I can learn how to
>> determine the params I need for the drives? Thanks
>>
> The command amtapetype should be in your amanda server installation.
> It can be used to determine the values for your site.
&g
s, or to where I can learn how to
> determine the params I need for the drives? Thanks
>
The command amtapetype should be in your amanda server installation.
It can be used to determine the values for your site.
The only tapetype parameter amanda actually uses is capacity.
So you could hand crea
Hi,
I'm setting up amanda 3.3.4. I can't find a definiton for changer's drives
(IBM ULTRIUM-TD5 LTO-5) in /etc/amanda/template.d/tapetypes
Can someone point me to a source for this, or to where I can learn how to
determine the params I need for the drives? Thanks
-M
t
header scratch file back to the tape.
> This time it will tell you
> that compression finally off. And you'll get a better value for the
> tapetype, too. I do this now for each new tape (and one for the old
> tapes too). THEN the compress will stay off, once the tape stops
&g
his:
mt -f /dev/nst2 comp off
mt -f /dev/nst2 compression off
dd of=/dev/nst2 if=/dev/zero bs=32k count=3272#or 32728
then rewind and try the amtapetype again. This time it will tell you that
compression
finally off. And you'll get a better value for the tapetype, too.
I do this n
-f /dev/sgX
> ...
> DataCompEnabled: no
> DataCompCapable: yes
> DataDeCompEnabled: yes
>
> hth,
> jf
>
>>
>> On Apr 17, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Jean-Francois Malouin
>> wrote:
>>
>>> * Abilio Carvalho [20130417 10:19]:
>>>> Well,
wered, I had to run amtapetype, so here it is if
> >> anyone else needs it:
> >>
> >> define tapetype LTO6 {
> >>comment "Created by amtapetype; compression enabled"
> >>length 2442818848 kbytes
>
, I had to run amtapetype, so here it is if anyone
>> else needs it:
>>
>> define tapetype LTO6 {
>>comment "Created by amtapetype; compression enabled"
>>length 2442818848 kbytes
>>filemark 1806 kbytes
&g
* Abilio Carvalho [20130417 10:19]:
> Well, since noone answered, I had to run amtapetype, so here it is if anyone
> else needs it:
>
> define tapetype LTO6 {
> comment "Created by amtapetype; compression enabled"
>
Well, since noone answered, I had to run amtapetype, so here it is if anyone
else needs it:
define tapetype LTO6 {
comment "Created by amtapetype; compression enabled"
length 2442818848 kbytes
filemark 1806 kbytes
speed
Hi, just a quick question, does anyone have a tape type for an LTO6 drive?
(Ideally an HP Ultrium 6 SCSI)
Thanks
Abilio
**
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the indiv
Does anyone have a tapetype for a Quantum Super Loader 3 with a DLT-V4
drive they would be willing to share before I go off hacking up my own? The
wiki has one for the Super Loader 3 with a DLT-S4 drive, but I'm not sure
if that will work.
Kind Regards,
Chris
Christopher Nighswonger
Fa
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 at 12:22pm, Jean-Francois Malouin wrote
Just got a new HP LTO-4 tape drive and I've done some testing
to get a tapetype entry for it and I don't see much of a difference
between the default (32k) and higher values like 512k, 1024k and
2048k (see below). Wha
Hi,
Just got a new HP LTO-4 tape drive and I've done some testing
to get a tapetype entry for it and I don't see much of a difference
between the default (32k) and higher values like 512k, 1024k and
2048k (see below). What are your experiences wrt to a specific choice
of a blocksize
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Chris Marble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Last I looked Amanda did not make use of the speed parameter (but that
> was many years ago). Not sure why my speed number is so much higher.
This is still the case.
Dustin
--
Storage Software Engineer
http://www.zman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have used amtapetype to get the LTO4 constants, it was very long
> from 13:00 until 21:30 . but here is it :
>
> define tapetype LTO4 {
> comment "Dell LTO4 800Go - Compression Off"
> length 802816 mbyte
Hello,
I have used amtapetype to get the LTO4 constants, it was very long
from 13:00 until 21:30 . but here is it :
define tapetype LTO4 {
comment "Dell LTO4 800Go - Compression Off"
length 802816 mbytes
filemark 0 kbytes
speed 52616 kps
}
As I have no login to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
I get a brand new LTO4 tape and I wonder about the tape definition
to use.
You can use amtapetype to generate your own one:
http://wiki.zmanda.com/index.php/Amtapetype
And if you have done, you can add it to the wiki
http://wiki.zmanda.com/index.php/Tapetype_definit
you can use the tapetype program to generate your own.
--On December 6, 2007 12:33:31 AM +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I get a brand new LTO4 tape and I wonder about the tape definition
to use.
Regards
JPP
--
"Genius might be described as a supreme capacity for gettin
Hello,
I get a brand new LTO4 tape and I wonder about the tape definition
to use.
Regards
JPP
les in 12562 seconds (short write)
>>>> wrote 2477223 32Kb blocks in 189 files in 12784 seconds (short write)
>>>> define tapetype unknown-tapetype {
>>>> comment "just produced by tapetype prog (hardware compression off)"
>>>>
iting 512 Mbyte compresseable data: 94 sec
> > > Writing 512 Mbyte uncompresseable data: 82 sec
> > > Estimated time to write 2 * 81920 Mbyte: 26240 sec = 7 h 17 min
> > > wrote 2490330 32Kb blocks in 95 files in 12562 seconds (short write)
> > > wrote 2477223 32Kb
2 sec
> > Estimated time to write 2 * 81920 Mbyte: 26240 sec = 7 h 17 min
> > wrote 2490330 32Kb blocks in 95 files in 12562 seconds (short write)
> > wrote 2477223 32Kb blocks in 189 files in 12784 seconds (short write)
> > define tapetype unknown-tapetype {
> > co
30 32Kb blocks in 95 files in 12562 seconds (short write)
> wrote 2477223 32Kb blocks in 189 files in 12784 seconds (short write)
> define tapetype unknown-tapetype {
> comment "just produced by tapetype prog (hardware compression off)"
> length 78236 mbytes
> filema
files in 12562 seconds (short write)
wrote 2477223 32Kb blocks in 189 files in 12784 seconds (short write)
define tapetype unknown-tapetype {
comment "just produced by tapetype prog (hardware compression off)"
length 78236 mbytes
filemark 4461 kbytes
speed 6272 kps
}
rb
-
gth filemark value?
>
>
> define tapetype HP_DAT160 {
> comment "HP DAT 160 USB (hardware compression on)"
-EHARDWARE_COMPRESSION_ON
> length 65535 mbytes
And that's why only 64 GiB fit on your fancy DAT160 tape...
> filemark 0
Rory Beaton schrieb:
Someone was asking for this recently
That was me, thanks.
and the FAQ threw a tantrum when
I tried to add it.
You mean, the FOM (FAQ-O-Matic)?
Stefan
Someone was asking for this recently and the FAQ threw a tantrum when I tried
to add it.
Anyway...this is the output of amatapetype for a Hewlett Packard DAT 160 USB
that we recently acquired.
Is it common to see a zero length filemark value?
define tapetype HP_DAT160 {
comment "H
Anyone using a HP DAT160 with Amanda?
Would you share your tapetype-definition?
Thanks, Stefan
/* strange end case */
>}
> - do_pass(pass1size, &pass1blocks, &pass1files, &pass1time);
> + do_pass(pass1size, &pass1blocks, &pass1files, &pass1time, tapedev);
>
>/*
> * Do pass 2 -- write smaller files until error.
> */
>pass2size = pass1size / (off_t)2;
> - do_pass(pass2size, &pass2blocks, &pass2files, &pass2time);
> + do_pass(pass2size, &pass2blocks, &pass2files, &pass2time, tapedev);
>
>/*
> * Compute the size of a filemark as the difference in data written
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/tapetype-problem-tf3834022.html#a10939645
Sent from the Amanda - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
abrantes's Mail:
>
> The tape drive is OK. Some tests:
>
> [... deleted ...]
>
> # amtapetype -o -b 10240 -e 40g -f /dev/nst0 -t
> "DELL_POWERVAULT_110T_DLT_VS_80"
> Estimate phase 1...amtapetype: could not write any data in this pass:
> Success
I had a similar problem with with a DDS3 tape driv
diferent tapetype
comand (using -b option), but the error message was:
# amtapetype -o -b 10240 -e 40g -f /dev/nst0 -t
"DELL_POWERVAULT_110T_DLT_VS_80"
Estimate phase 1...amtapetype: could not write any data in this pass:
Success
Any sugestions? Thanks!
Jon LaBadie wrote:
>
>
32 bits)
> Tape Device: Dell Power Vault 110T DLT VS 80
> Amanda: 2.5.2-20070525
>
> When I use tapetype, I'm getting the follow error message:
>
> $ amtapetype -o -e 40g -f /dev/nst0 -t "DELL_POWERVAULT_110T_DLT_VS_80"
> Estimate phase 1...amtapetype: could not
I'm trying to configure Amanda in my system (actualy with ARCServe 9), but
I'm having some dificulties with amtapetype. My system is:
Hardware: Dell PowerEdge 1600SC
OS: SuSE Linux Enterprise 8 (32 bits)
Tape Device: Dell Power Vault 110T DLT VS 80
Amanda: 2.5.2-20070525
When I us
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 at 3:10pm, Chris Hoogendyk wrote
Do you achieve 80MB/s on your LTO3?
The numbers in the amdump reports range from 55-70MB/s. And that's
running backups to both drives in my library.
--
Joshua Baker-LePain
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Duke University
Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 at 11:01am, Chris Hoogendyk wrote
define tapetype SONY-AIT5 {
comment "SONY AIT5 8mm tape drive"
# data provided by Chris Hoogendyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# produced by whacking it for 10 hrs or so with amtapetype
# on a
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 at 11:01am, Chris Hoogendyk wrote
define tapetype SONY-AIT5 {
comment "SONY AIT5 8mm tape drive"
# data provided by Chris Hoogendyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# produced by whacking it for 10 hrs or so with amtapetype
# on a Sun E250 with a Dual Ultra
using amtapetype to whack the drive overnight, and it
came up with the following results (I modified the comments and replaced
unknown-tapetype):
# /usr/local/sbin/amtapetype -f /dev/rmt/1n -e 400G
Writing 16384 Mbyte compresseable data: 682 sec
Writing 16384 Mbyte uncompresseable data: 68
Hi All,
I forgot to forward the tapetype definition I got for
my HP Ultrium 960, after disabling the hardware
compression.
The tapetype definition is as given below:
define tapetype unknown-tapetype {
comment "just produced by tapetype prog (hardware
compression off)"
len
s hardware compression enabled
Estimated time to write 2 * 409600 Mbyte: 15800 sec =
4 h 23 min
wrote 12320768 32Kb blocks in 94 files in 5669 seconds
(short write)
wrote 12386304 32Kb blocks in 189 files in 6033
seconds (short write)
define tapetype unknown-tapetype {
comment "just produced b
Yogesh Hasabnis schreef:
Hi All,
I would be grateful if anybody can forward me the
tapetype definition for an HP Ultrium 960 LTO3 tape
device (external). The SCSI controller used is an HP
374654-B21 - 64-bit Single Channel Wide Ultra320 SCSI
Controller. Basically, on what factors does the
tapetype -f /dev/nst0
>
> The command itself can take up to 72 hours to complete, but the result
> is specific to your system. Again, ensure hardware compression is turned
> off.
>
>
> Yogesh Hasabnis wrote:
> >Hi All,
> >
> >I would be grateful if anybody
specific to your system. Again, ensure hardware compression is turned
off.
Best Regards,
Sean
Sean Connors
ArgonST
Yogesh Hasabnis wrote:
Hi All,
I would be grateful if anybody can forward me the
tapetype definition for an HP Ultrium 960 LTO3 tape
device (external). The SCSI controller used
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 at 4:55am, Yogesh Hasabnis wrote
I would be grateful if anybody can forward me the
tapetype definition for an HP Ultrium 960 LTO3 tape
device (external). The SCSI controller used is an HP
374654-B21 - 64-bit Single Channel Wide Ultra320 SCSI
This is what I use for my LTO3
Hi All,
I would be grateful if anybody can forward me the
tapetype definition for an HP Ultrium 960 LTO3 tape
device (external). The SCSI controller used is an HP
374654-B21 - 64-bit Single Channel Wide Ultra320 SCSI
Controller. Basically, on what factors does the
tapetype deifintion depend? Else
Question: is the following tapetype (obtained with
amtapetype -o -e 4g -f /dev/nst0 -t LTX200G on
an Exabyte 1x7 LTO autoloader) on the list?
define tapetype LTX200G {
comment "just produced by tapetype prog (hardware compression off)"
length 201216 mbytes
filemark 0 kbytes
s
ting 2048 Mbyte uncompresseable data: 76 sec
> > > WARNING: Tape drive has hardware compression enabled
> > > Estimated time to write 2 * 204800 Mbyte: 15200 sec = 4 h 13 min
> > > wrote 6422528 32Kb blocks in 98 files in 7358 seconds (short write)
> > > wrote 645
Street FAX: (419) 821-0540
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2067
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Bijnens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 11:37 AM
> To: McGraw, Robert P.
> Cc: amanda List
> Subject: Re: tapetype questi
: 15200 sec = 4 h 13 min
wrote 6422528 32Kb blocks in 98 files in 7358 seconds (short write)
wrote 6455296 32Kb blocks in 197 files in 7737 seconds (short write)
define tapetype LTO2HWC {
comment "just produced by tapetype prog (hardware compression on)"
length 201216 mbytes
Street FAX: (419) 821-0540
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2067
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Jon LaBadie
> Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 6:12 PM
> To: amanda-users@amanda.org
> Subject: Re:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 at 9:08am, McGraw, Robert P. wrote
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Baker-LePain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ah, the hardware manufacturers have brainwashed you well! ;) They'll be
so pleased.
[McGraw, Robert P.]
Not brainwashed but not knowing what amtapetype was
> -Original Message-
> From: Joshua Baker-LePain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 5:04 AM
> To: McGraw, Robert P.
> Cc: amanda-users@amanda.org
> Subject: Re: tapetype question
>
>
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 at 1:53pm, McGraw, Ro
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 at 1:53pm, McGraw, Robert P. wrote
How is length calculated? I would think that the length should be closer to
400G if hardware compression is on.
Ah, the hardware manufacturers have brainwashed you well! ;) They'll be
so pleased.
In addition to the other comments poste
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 06:11:50PM -0400, Jon LaBadie wrote:
>
> On the net I found a suggested entry for LTO2 - I have no idea
> if it is correct or reasonable.
>
> ULTRIUM = 1, 0x36, 0, 0xd639, 4, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x40, 3;
>
> This one creates all the 4 of the lettered devices, but
gt; MaxBlock:16777215
> Ready: yes
>
...
>
> I am running Solaris 10 on the amanda server. I ran the first part of
> tapetype with /dev/rmt/1n(c) where "n" is no rewind and "c" is compression.
> I did not specify the "c" or "u"
t; MaxBlock:16777215
> Ready: yes
>
> I am trying to decide if I want to compress with software or hardware with
> the new drive. I see the advantages and disadvantages of each.
>
>
> Here is an lto2 tapetype that matches my unit.
>
> -bash-3.00$ /usr/sb
On 8/1/06, McGraw, Robert P. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am running Solaris 10 on the amanda server. I ran the first part of
tapetype with /dev/rmt/1n(c) where "n" is no rewind and "c" is compression.
I did not specify the "c" or "u" for c
the new drive. I see the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Here is an lto2 tapetype that matches my unit.
-bash-3.00$ /usr/sbin/amtapetype -e 200g -f /dev/nst0 -t Ultrium2
Writing 4096 Mbyte compresseable data: 40 sec
Writing 4096 Mbyte uncompresseable data: 350 sec
WARNING: Tape drive ha
ce, or can it? Also SCSI generic support was not
> available at the time.
>
> Now that I have everything from the barcode reader working to the tapes
> labeled, I will run the tapetype again. I also have SCSI generic enabled
> and plan to run tapetype with the /dev/nst0 device.
>
generic support was not
available at the time.
Now that I have everything from the barcode reader working to the tapes
labeled, I will run the tapetype again. I also have SCSI generic enabled
and plan to run tapetype with the /dev/nst0 device.
I will cut and paste the complete console message after
I got this... Now that I look at it the length seems a little short,
but we seem to be using only about 30% of the tape at this point (we
where running ok on the LTO1 but are constantly adding more DLEs).
define tapetype LTO3 {
comment "just produced by tapetype prog"
commen
On 2006-07-11 19:46, Tanniel Simonian wrote:
Amanda Group
I ran the amtapetype from Amanda 2.5.0p2 last night, took about 6 hours to
complete the estimate:
Model: Quantum Superload 3 LTO-3 16 Tape Library.
define tapetype QS3LTO-3 {
comment "Quantum Super Loader 3 LTO-3 16 tape li
Amanda Group
I ran the amtapetype from Amanda 2.5.0p2 last night, took about 6 hours to
complete the estimate:
Model: Quantum Superload 3 LTO-3 16 Tape Library.
define tapetype QS3LTO-3 {
comment "Quantum Super Loader 3 LTO-3 16 tape library"
length 448369 mbytes
filemark 6403 kby
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/tapetype-definitions-t1722903.html#a4711879
Sent from the Amanda - Users forum at Nabble.com.
.
Now I assumed that it should give me a 40GB capacity as I have hardware
compression off.
But I get the following:
define tapetype DLT8000 {
comment "just produced by tapetype prog (hardware compression off)"
length 36650 mbytes
filemark 0 kbytes
speed 3944 kps
}
Now it is n
t;compression off.
> >But I get the following:
> >define tapetype DLT8000 {
> >comment "just produced by tapetype prog (hardware compression off)"
> >length 36650 mbytes
> >filemark 0 kbytes
> >speed 3944 kps
> >}
> >
>
Chris Lee schreef:
Just to add to the whole tape type thing :)
I ran amtapetype on my DLT8000 (40/80GB) using a DLTIV tape.
Now I assumed that it should give me a 40GB capacity as I have hardware
compression off.
But I get the following:
define tapetype DLT8000 {
comment "just produc
owing:
> define tapetype DLT8000 {
> comment "just produced by tapetype prog (hardware compression off)"
> length 36650 mbytes
> filemark 0 kbytes
> speed 3944 kps
> }
>
> Now it is not far off but should it not be closer?
> Also I get a
Just to add to the whole tape type thing :)
I ran amtapetype on my DLT8000 (40/80GB) using a DLTIV tape.
Now I assumed that it should give me a 40GB capacity as I have hardware
compression off.
But I get the following:
define tapetype DLT8000 {
comment "just produced by tapetype
e has actually
> written 160GB to the tape, and tells Amanda that it's full.
right
>
> Amand therefore thinks the tape drive's capacity is only 135GB.
>
> Is that correct?
yup.
>
> So if I use this tapetype definition, will Amanda in future only ever send
> 135
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 08:14:28AM -0700, Joe Donner (sent by Nabble.com) wrote:
>
> Firstly - thank you for the replies.
>
> Secondly - I'm now more confused than before!
>
> Is my understanding correct then that I can conceivably use this tapetype
> definition, but
tells Amanda that it's full.
Amand therefore thinks the tape drive's capacity is only 135GB.
Is that correct?
So if I use this tapetype definition, will Amanda in future only ever send
135GB to the drive?
If I disable hardware compression, then I will always get a minimum of 135GB
worth of
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 08:14:28AM -0700, Joe Donner (sent by Nabble.com)
enlightened us:
> Firstly - thank you for the replies.
>
> Secondly - I'm now more confused than before!
>
> Is my understanding correct then that I can conceivably use this tapetype
> definiti
Firstly - thank you for the replies.
Secondly - I'm now more confused than before!
Is my understanding correct then that I can conceivably use this tapetype
definition, but that I probably shouldn't expect to be backing up more than
approximately 160GB to a tape? Or, more to
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 07:08:39AM -0700, Joe Donner (sent by Nabble.com) wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I've just run amtapetype -f /dev/nst0 for Amanda to generate a tapetype
> definition for an HP Storageworks SDLT 320 tape drive.
>
> The results came back as:
>
>
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 07:08:39AM -0700, Joe Donner (sent by Nabble.com)
enlightened us:
> Dear all,
>
> I've just run amtapetype -f /dev/nst0 for Amanda to generate a tapetype
> definition for an HP Storageworks SDLT 320 tape drive.
>
> The results came back as:
>
Dear all,
I've just run amtapetype -f /dev/nst0 for Amanda to generate a tapetype
definition for an HP Storageworks SDLT 320 tape drive.
The results came back as:
define tapetype unknown-tapetype {
comment "just produced by tapetype prog (hardware compression on)"
length 135040
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 at 12:30pm, stan wrote
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 09:31:17AM -0500, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
FYI, I found that I got faster speeds with LTO3 by using larger than the
default blocksize of 32KB. My nightly amanda backups get ~70MB/s using
2MB blocks.
I went back and tries t
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 09:31:17AM -0500, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 at 6:50am, stan wrote
>
> >Here is the tapetype I got for my HP SorageWorks 960
> >Ultrium 3 unit.
> >
> >Hopefully it will help others.
> >
> >define tapet
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 12:00:04PM -0500, Salada, Duncan S (Titan) @ TITAN
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm having trouble getting amtapetype to give me a 200gb tapetype for a HP
> Ultrium LTO 1 drive. It tells me that hardware compression is on, and I've
> tried using "
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 12:00:04PM -0500, Salada, Duncan S (Titan) @ TITAN
enlightened us:
> I'm having trouble getting amtapetype to give me a 200gb tapetype for a HP
> Ultrium LTO 1 drive. It tells me that hardware compression is on, and I've
> tried using "-e200g&quo
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 at 12:00pm, Salada, Duncan S (Titan) @ TITAN wrote
Something with no line breaks in the paragraphs. Please add some line
breaks.
I'm having trouble getting amtapetype to give me a 200gb tapetype for a
HP Ultrium LTO 1 drive. It tells me that hardware compression
Hello,
I'm having trouble getting amtapetype to give me a 200gb tapetype for a HP
Ultrium LTO 1 drive. It tells me that hardware compression is on, and I've
tried using "-e200g" with "-f/dev/rmt/0ubn" and "-f/dev/rmt/0cbn" in
desperation. But it st
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 at 11:31am, Jon LaBadie wrote
I'm on really shakey ground here, but doesn't the tape have to be
relabeled to get the tape header set to the new block size?
IIRC, amanda rewrites the tape header at the start of every amdump.
--
Joshua Baker-LePain
Department of Biomedical E
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 11:04:53AM -0500, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 at 4:14pm, Alexander Jolk wrote
>
> >Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> >>For amdump and friends, blocksize is set in the tapetype. For
> >>amtapetype, you can set it on the comman
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 at 4:14pm, Alexander Jolk wrote
Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
For amdump and friends, blocksize is set in the tapetype. For amtapetype,
you can set it on the command line. 'man amanda.conf' and 'man amtapetype'
are your friends.
When changing the bl
Alexander Jolk wrote:
> When changing the blocksize, will amanda happily read (restore) older
> tapes written with a different blocksize, or will I have to recover
> them manually? Will she correctly overwrite recycled tapes with the
> new blocksize?
I believe the blocksize just affects how much
Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
For amdump and friends, blocksize is set in the tapetype. For
amtapetype, you can set it on the command line. 'man amanda.conf' and
'man amtapetype' are your friends.
When changing the blocksize, will amanda happily read (restore) older
t at 60+MB/sec.
> For amdump and friends, blocksize is set in the tapetype. For
> amtapetype, you can set it on the command line. 'man amanda.conf' and
> 'man amtapetype' are your friends.
Cool, I'll look into that, I'm actually upgrading out backup server
to
s bad for both tapes and the drive (and capacity,
for that matter). This generally means actually putting some thought/$$
into the backup server's disk system.
For amdump and friends, blocksize is set in the tapetype. For amtapetype,
you can set it on the command line. 'man amanda
Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> FYI, I found that I got faster speeds with LTO3 by using larger than
> the default blocksize of 32KB. My nightly amanda backups get ~70MB/s
> using 2MB blocks.
Hrm... I'm not being tapespeed limited (yet), but where do you configure
the blocksize in Amanda?
Graeme
1 - 100 of 519 matches
Mail list logo
