Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!sgi!shinobu!odin!empower.corp.sgi.com!trant From: trant@empower.corp.sgi.com (Ken Trant) Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: parameters for (r)dump to an exabyte Message-ID: <1991Jun25.234824.15269@odin.corp.sgi.com> Date: 25 Jun 91 23:48:24 GMT References: <1991Jun19.222701.29689@cs.ucla.edu> Sender: news@odin.corp.sgi.com (Net News) Organization: sgi Lines: 53 The parameter used (6000) is wrong. The way I read his command line is he wants a level 0 dump, write the successful completion to /etc/dumpdates, tape length of 6000 feet, density and dump device. The exebyte is 112 meters or 4409.44 inches, or 453572 bpi (2000Mbytes on American exabyte tapes). I use 408215 as a density (minus 10%) for saftey sake. Also remember to use the no rewind device for multiple volumes on 1 tape. Good luck In article , frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes: |> 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 -- Ken Trant / Third Star to the right Information Services, / And straight on till Silicon Graphics, Inc / Morning