Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucla-cs!oahu!frazier From: frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: parameters for (r)dump to an exabyte Message-ID: Date: 20 Jun 91 16:37:04 GMT References: <1991Jun19.222701.29689@cs.ucla.edu> Sender: usenet@cs.ucla.edu (Mr. News Himself) Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department Lines: 36 Nntp-Posting-Host: oahu.cs.ucla.edu janet@cs.uwa.oz.au (Janet Jackson) writes: >In <1991Jun19.222701.29689@cs.ucla.edu> frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes: >>Hello - >> Could somebody give me the appropriate parameters for >>doing a dump to an exebyte tape (2 gbyte)? For the record, >>what I just tried was >> dump 0usdf 6000 54000 /dev/rst1 filesystem >>as specified in the man page. Thanks for any help. >And what went wrong? >I'm using the same parameters, except I'm using a blocksize of 126, and it >seems to work fine. (Don't think I've ever reached the end of a tape yet, >though :-{ ) (that's supposed to be a look of consternation) For the curious, here is the context. I am writing a dump script, and was testing/debugging it. An error msg similar to this appeared on the console: error on /dev/rst1: bad length parameter Let me say now that I'm a novice at system hacking. I did a (mt -f /dev/rst1 fsf 1) to skip a 10 meg file at the front of the tape, and attempted to dump 2 file systems onto the tape. These should have come to much less than 1 gig, let alone 2.3 gigs. I was not planning on keeping track of the amnt of tape already used, but rather to guarentee that the file systems being dumped on a single tape together had a lower capacity than the tape. It has been suggested to me that rdump'ing w/out specifying a blocksize is bad news - I'll try that as my first correction. -- Greg Frazier frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU !{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier