*BSD News Article 30317


Return to BSD News archive

Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!uwm.edu!daffy!uwvax!oka.cs.wisc.edu!jcargill
From: jcargill@oka.cs.wisc.edu (Jon Cargille)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: Reading 8mm tape under FreeBSD 1.0.2
Date: 11 May 1994 15:06:01 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <2qqs8p$3ni@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
References: <1994May10.045408.11205@ticipa.pac.sc.ti.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: oka.cs.wisc.edu

In article <1994May10.045408.11205@ticipa.pac.sc.ti.com>,
Rex Fowler <rmfowler@landru.mtc.ti.com> wrote:
>AHA 1542CF SCSI adapter, FreeBSD 1.02.
>
>What steps should I have to perform in order to read a 2Gb 8mm tape
>written in the following steps?
>
># shutdown -r now             (make sure tape drive is at defaults)
># tar cvf /dev/rst0 .         (writes tape without problem)
># tar tvf /dev/rst0           (reads fine)
># shutdown -r now
># tar tvf /dev/rst0           (error, won't read tape)
>	st0: medium error, info = 10 (decimal)
>

I ran into the same problem when I first tried 8mm tape on FreeBSD.

The solution is to explicitly set the blocksize to variable before you
read it.  Although after your reboot, "st -f /dev/nrst0 status" will
report that the blocksize is "0" (or variable), it's sort of lying.
When you first read from the drive, the SCSI driver (I think) actually
tries to autodetect the blocksize, and gets it wrong.

If you try the following instead, you should be able to read the tapes
just fine:

# shutdown -r now
# st -f /dev/nrst0 blocksize 0
# tar tvf /dev/nrst0

At least, this works for me, and I thought my new tape drive was hosed
until I figured it out...  ;-)

>I'm getting ready to install 1.1 but I want to be able to reliably
>read my backups first.  I've tried various things with "st" but I
>can't find a sure-fire method to be able to guarantee the tape will
>be readable.

One other tip:  If you're really making "backups", use dump/restore
instead.  dump/restore were created specificly for backups, and are
better in a number of ways.  They can restore an entire partition
better, and have nice support for incremental backups.  I also get
fewer "stalls" from the tape drive when using dump/restore; tar stall
constantly when writing small files...

To be totally truthful, recent versions of gnu tar have support for
many of the above features as well, but I still like dump/restore
better.  Is it just religious, or can someone else come up with other
advantages of dump/restore?

Hope this helps,

Jon
-- 
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Jon Cargille		jcargill@cs.wisc.edu
Want your .sig compressed?  Reasonable rates
and fast turnaround. Call today!