OP
- Thread Starter
- #26
Sorry for the delay in response. I was out of town for a while and then had to play catch-up.
It's become clear that the original problem was just bad hardware (or an internal connection or something similar). Replacing the bad drive has taken care of the original issue. Tapes destroyed by the original bad drive continue to not work, but that's to be expected.
The above error persists when using integers larger than 8 for the blocksize, but everything appears to be working with the default size of 10. Should I consider the message a warning and not an actual error? Should I feel warned?
And I've still never found a reasonable way to come up with blocksize and cache parameters. I understand the general concepts now and what it means to use higher rather than lower numbers, but no actual guide for what actual numbers I should put in the script. Is there such a guide?
What kind of feedback would I be looking for to know if the numbers I have chosen are good? What would change if the numbers chosen are better/worse?
It's become clear that the original problem was just bad hardware (or an internal connection or something similar). Replacing the bad drive has taken care of the original issue. Tapes destroyed by the original bad drive continue to not work, but that's to be expected.
Code:
(sa0:mps0:0:4:0): 10240-byte tape record bigger than supplied bufferAnd I've still never found a reasonable way to come up with blocksize and cache parameters. I understand the general concepts now and what it means to use higher rather than lower numbers, but no actual guide for what actual numbers I should put in the script. Is there such a guide?
What kind of feedback would I be looking for to know if the numbers I have chosen are good? What would change if the numbers chosen are better/worse?