Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:43:22 +0200 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: restore seems to be misbehaving Message-ID: <19970916014322.SQ08928@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199709150939.TAA01215@mailbox.uq.edu.au>; from Stephen Hocking on Sep 15, 1997 19:39:28 %2B1000 References: <19970914091441.PA51985@uriah.heep.sax.de> <199709150939.TAA01215@mailbox.uq.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Stephen Hocking wrote: > I was just bitten by this too - repartitioned my hard drive and lost a few > files when restoring my /usr/src fs. I'm running with an NCR 810 also. I'll > keep the dd trick in mind. The command used to back things up with a large > number of QIC-150 tapes was "dump Obf 120000 /dev/rst0 /usr/src". Most > puzzling. Uhh -- but QIC 150 tapes (you are using them up to 120 MB only actually) are in a *totally* different boat than the original posting. They are fixed-length blocking with 512 bytes per tape block. They always *must* work, or something is royally screwed. restore will probably claim the tape block size were 10 KB or even 32, but that doesn't matter: if it issues a read(2) with this blocksize, the kernel should read as many tape blocks as required to satisfy the request. Variable-length blocking tapes are vastly different in their behaviour. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970916014322.SQ08928>