From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 14 22:15:35 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B2F016A41C for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 22:15:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from smtp-out3.blueyonder.co.uk (smtp-out3.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.213.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB79D43D49 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 22:15:34 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from [82.41.37.55] ([82.41.37.55]) by smtp-out3.blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:16:14 +0100 Message-ID: <42AF5705.6000904@dial.pipex.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:15:33 +0100 From: Alex Zbyslaw User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-GB; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050530 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us, pl MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chuck Swiger References: <20050613234529.42333.qmail@web50403.mail.yahoo.com> <42AEB46B.9050205@dial.pipex.com> <42AF1806.8000604@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <42AF1806.8000604@mac.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jun 2005 22:16:14.0326 (UTC) FILETIME=[AD80C960:01C5712E] Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Damian Sobieralski Subject: Re: tape record bigger than supplied buffer X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 22:15:35 -0000 Chuck Swiger wrote: > Alex Zbyslaw wrote: > >> Damian Sobieralski wrote: >> >>> I added the following to my tape drive area in the bacula-sd-conf: >>> >>> Minimum Block Size = 64512 >>> Maximum Block Size = 64512 >>> >>> I'm not seeing those errors any longer. I've restored and all seems >>> to go well. >> >> >> Good stuff! Did that number come out of your tape drive manual, in >> the end? Just wondering why 64512 rather than 65536... > > > It's 63K. I've seen recommendations elsewhere to use a tape blocksize > of 63K rather than 64K if hardware compression is enabled, because > sometimes the data doesn't have a positive compression ratio... > Thanks for the tip! That trailing 512 should have been a giveaway... --Alex