home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.dec
- Path: sparky!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!nabeth!alan
- From: alan@nabeth.enet.dec.com (Alan Rollow - Alan's Home for Wayward Tumbleweeds.)
- Subject: re: Non-Interactive dump for RISC Ultrix 4.2 [it is]
- Message-ID: <1992Sep14.193905.11916@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>
- Lines: 69
- Sender: alan@nabeth (Alan Rollow - Alan's Home for Wayward Tumbleweeds.)
- Reply-To: alan@nabeth.enet.dec.com (Alan Rollow - Alan's Home for Wayward Tumbleweeds.)
- Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
- References: <GEORGE.92Sep14023506@tusk.med.harvard.edu>
- Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:39:05 GMT
-
-
- In article <GEORGE.92Sep14023506@tusk.med.harvard.edu>, george@tusk.med.harvard.edu (George Planansky) writes:
- >
- >The Ultrix 4.2 dump paramater "B", it turns out, refers
- >to the capacity in 1024 byte blocks of the dump tape. Seems
- >redundant to me.
-
- The manual page entry for 'B' reads:
-
- "Indicates that the next argument is a number that specifies the
- size, in 1024-byte blocks, of a storage medium, such as a
- diskette or removable disk cartridge."
-
- Note the "diskette or removable disk cartridge". I'd guess that
- when dump(8) sees the 'B' option it begins believing the output
- media is disk instead of tape. Disk can after call have a fixed
- number of 1 KB blocks. On tapes the number 1 KB blocks can change
- because of records skipped due to errors and such.
-
- >This is NOT to be confused with the Sun's SunOS and SGI's IRIX dumps'
- >"b" parameter, which refers to a blocking factor. (Why doesn't the
- >Ultrix dump have this?)
-
- Because little active improvement has been made on dump(8) over the
- last few years. Aside for support for new tape drivers, loader support
- and the TA90, etc, there hasn't been much new. I don't know WHY little
- improvement has been made, but must assume it's because the people that
- schedule engineering's time don't believe it needs to be updated. This
- has been a classic problem of ours and I'm not sure how to fix it. Maybe
- a concerted SPR or letter writting campaign to corporate executives...
-
- Oh, the last time I looked the 'b' option for a blocking factor was
- present in dump(8). It just isn't documented. The problem is that
- there isn't corresponding support in restore.
-
- >
- >And why does the Ultrix dump ask me to mount a disk, when it computes
- >that it has run out of tape?
-
- As noted before, because it believes it is writting to disk instead
- of tape. Don't use the 'B' option on tapes.
- >
- >The following (from Mountain Computer's exabyte manual) seems to work:
- >
- > dump 0usdBf 346 4137733 2097152 /dev/nrmt1h /usr
-
- It is always worth noting that ULTRIX dump(8) will use all of the
- available and accessible tape (*). For supported tapes, it should
- have (but sometimes doesn't) reasonable parameters for estimating
- the amount of tape needed. Please recognize the estimates as just
- that, ESTIMATES. If the parameters are wrong, then the estimates
- will be wrong. It will still use all the tape.
-
- However, if you specify other parameters to use as estimates, it
- will trust you and work on the assumption that your estimate is
- correct. If you provide bad information, then you may end up
- telling it to use only part of a tape.
-
- >--
- >George Planansky
- >Department of Biological Chemistry & Molecular Pharmacology
- >Harvard University Medical School, 240 Longwood Ave., Boston, MA 02115
- >email: gplanansky@tusk.med.harvard.edu
- >phone: (617) 432-3919
- >fax: (617) 432-4360
- >
- --
- Alan Rollow alan@nabeth.cxo.dec.com
-
-