Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 09:44:27 +0100 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Good name for a dump(8) option? Message-ID: <Mutt.19970204094427.j@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <m0vrc6T-000utcC@nemesis.lonestar.org>; from Frank Durda IV on Feb 3, 1997 22:03:00 -0500 References: <m0vrc6T-000utcC@nemesis.lonestar.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Frank Durda IV wrote: > Actually, "e" is an excellent choice since the official name for that point > on the tape is the "EOT" (End-Of-Tape), whether it be a reflective > marker or punch-out in the media. Hmm, it has been voted for "a" now (automatic EOF handling). > A question though. When you get the error back, what do you consider > the state of the block just written or group of blocks just written? I haven't even dealt with this... this magic used to be in dump all the time, it's only that you normally didn't hit EOM unless you specified a tape length longer than the actual length. > Some drives will report the EOT and keep recording the current block > then stop (returning errors for any additional blocks), some drives keep > recording despite reporting EOT (and you can run the tape off the spindle > if you aren't careful), and other drives will stop instantly and refuse to > write further when the EOT is encountered. Some even back the tape up and > write two EOF marks over the block if it spans the EOT mark. I think that's a matter of the driver. dump will probably trust it for whatever it reported to be written to the tape, when it returns from the write(2) call. -- 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?Mutt.19970204094427.j>