Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 18:29:40 +1000 From: Stephen Hocking <shocking@mailbox.uq.edu.au> To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: restore seems to be misbehaving Message-ID: <199709160829.SAA01105@mailbox.uq.edu.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:43:22 %2B0200." <19970916014322.SQ08928@uriah.heep.sax.de>
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. > Well, that's quite correct, but the bug exhibited exactly the same symptoms (although I've yet to run ktrace to see whats happening). I think that there's something screwy happening, particularly on tape devices been used repeatedly with little or no pause Stephen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709160829.SAA01105>