- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - OpenVMS
- >
- Re: How about the tape drive ?
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО02-24-2004 04:22 PM
тАО02-24-2004 04:22 PM
How about the tape drive ?
I run the mon.com to backup my files as following:
ljj> @mon
%MOUNT-I-MOUNTED, MON mounted on _ALPHA$MKB600:
Listing of save set(s)
%SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO, access violation, reason mask=00, virtual address=000000000000
0000, PC=0000000000000000, PS=00000000
The bakup procedure stopped. why ?
The procedure mon.com is as following:
$ init mkB600: mon
$ mount mkb600:/ov=id
$ BACKUP/LIST/RECORD DRA0:[SEM.DATA.ZZ]*.*;* MKB600:ZZ.BAK
$ BACKUP/LIST/RECORD DKA100:[SEM.DATA.BAK.200312]*.*;* MKB600:LOG.BAK
$ BACKUP/LIST/RECORD DRA0:[SEM.DATA.CK]*.*;* MKB600:CK.BAK
$ BACKUP/LIST/RECORD DRA0:[SEM.DATA.PP]*.*;* MKB600:PP.BAK
$ BACKUP/LIST/RECORD DRA0:[SEM.DATA.DI]*.*;* MKB600:DI.BAK
$ BACKUP/LIST/RECORD DRA0:[SEM.DATA.EP]*.*;* MKB600:EP.BAK
$ BACKUP/LIST/RECORD DRA0:[SEM.DATA.KD]*.*;* MKB600:KD.BAK
$ BACKUP/LIST/RECORD DRA0:[SEM.DATA.IX]*.*;* MKB600:IX.BAK
$ BACKUP/LIST/RECORD DRA0:[SEM.DATA.MR]*.*;* MKB600:MR.BAK
$ BACKUP/LIST/RECORD DRA0:[SEM.DATA.PW]*.*;* MKB600:PW.BAK
$ BACKUP/LIST/RECORD DRA0:[SEM.DATA.PU]*.*;* MKB600:PU.BAK
$ dismount mkB600:
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО02-24-2004 05:24 PM
тАО02-24-2004 05:24 PM
Re: How about the tape drive ?
I have just thrown some keywords into google and came up with this link (see 10.7, Setting Process Quotas for Efficient Backups):
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/72final/6017/6017pro_044.html
Although this documentation is for V7.2 I don't recall that the rules have changed over the years. (Anybody else: have they?)
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО02-24-2004 06:42 PM
тАО02-24-2004 06:42 PM
Re: How about the tape drive ?
you mou tape device as structured device (MOUNT /OV=ID); this required tape working not in it optimal way and then may be require more quota you have avaiable (as posted by Uwe).
You could make as follow:
$ INIT MKB600: MON
$ MOUNT MKB600 /FORE
$ BACKUP/LIST/RECORD DRA0:[SEM.DATA.ZZ]*.*;* MKB600:ZZ.BAK/SAVE
$ ....
$ DISM MKB600:
You can investigate usinf ACCOUNT to view some process quota.
Also you could check software version: may be tape driver in V7.1-2 has som bug corrected by next version.
@Antoniov
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО02-24-2004 08:00 PM
тАО02-24-2004 08:00 PM
Re: How about the tape drive ?
/block=16384
or
/block=65535
as, unfortunately, the default (of 8192) gives very bad performance.
Regards
Gerard
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО02-24-2004 11:04 PM
тАО02-24-2004 11:04 PM
Re: How about the tape drive ?
I just want to remind that in the past people did $COPY the backup savesets from tape to disk and processed from there. This doesn't work when the block size is bigger that 32256.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО02-25-2004 12:02 AM
тАО02-25-2004 12:02 AM
Re: How about the tape drive ?
Mohamed
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО02-25-2004 12:29 AM
тАО02-25-2004 12:29 AM
Re: How about the tape drive ?
if your problem IS related to process quota (which sound rather probable to me), then be warned in advanced: going from VMS 7.1(-x) to 7.2(some) might want some more, but going to 7.3(some) requires about DOUBLE the BYTLM & PGFLQ. Also JTQUO is used a bit more. (Of course, if they are now already overdimensioned you will not notice, but I don't think that applies ;-) )
Jan