Re: SCSI Tape Corruption - 2nd round experiment result

2001-05-15 Thread Lorenzo Marcantonio
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > I never saw an offset different from the block size, though. > > Assuming you did have 32-byte errors, you had 7 errors for 1.3 GB. > > I have approx. 6 errors for 256 MB. But I have only 128 MB RAM. Next test: boot with mem=32M (shall I get

Re: SCSI Tape Corruption - 2nd round experiment result

2001-05-15 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote: > The differences: > > (File offsets in hex, patterns were found without other matches in > the file) > > First test: > 64 bytes at D9E0800 (found starting at D9D8800, 32KB before) > > Second test: > 64 bytes at 2F187C0 (found star

SCSI Tape Corruption - 2nd round experiment result

2001-05-14 Thread Lorenzo Marcantonio
Again battling with my SDT-9000, tonight first experiment was: - Moderately huge file (339443712 bytes). Obtained cat'ing some large tar.bz2, so essentially 'random data' - Fixed block size (dd bs=32KB, mt bs=512=default) - HW data compression at default (enabled) - Variable machine load (vary