X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to
	:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=Zc3nDnIDNsBe6Pbp
	i1ZPKV6IfZN9Ca1IgZkh/kZAyMIGm1Cbp0NS6qWhjZug2W6cXDvmx1zwyIpSW55D
	q8ANyiETgqeFfHuvADnf06S0NTRsGi+9twXuqgUIVwvpp4OyQwzbSwWcUbzvOlOd
	Ljj7emcVpD5iJQ7gbiPEAPxeG3A=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to
	:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=ZUH38y8HbJP0zz84h27TyN
	Br/78=; b=fpjaNO/eKTcLZAORZwNEBhYRaK5LVp0/2rGc3j2Yi4yDkr8PYbU6rp
	Rx7WrLelWKxbon4gK+dQE4G1ofIpoKcLEEgxprjiEadpnUiIIYIY6G4oEgAYq/1y
	L7n+/Fl5cW3EvfyEkFxey1Vpu8VLYeTGdNwl17oKvz9R5De4Vc/Sk=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
Message-ID:	<5212508F.2010107@cs.umass.edu>
Date:	Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:06:23 -0400
From:	Eliot Moss <moss AT cs DOT umass DOT edu>
Reply-To:	moss AT cs DOT umass DOT edu
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: mt and tar fail on LTO-5 drives
References:	<520FC274 DOT 3040001 AT mailme DOT ath DOT cx> <20130819101917 DOT GC18757 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <52124601 DOT 5000409 AT mailme DOT ath DOT cx> <5212485D DOT 7050601 AT cs DOT umass DOT edu> <52124A7F DOT 7070401 AT mailme DOT ath DOT cx>
In-Reply-To:	<52124A7F.7070401@mailme.ath.cx>

On 8/19/2013 12:40 PM, bartels wrote:
> On 08/19/2013 06:31 PM, Eliot Moss wrote:
>>
>> First of all, it's not clear to me whether it is a Microsoft problem
>> or a device driver problem.  I would see what's known about the behavior
>> of the devices and their drivers with the specific Windows version you
>> have.  Of course it could be that other tools don't need to ask those
>> same questions, for some reason, so that they end up working fine ..
>
> Good thinking.
>
> Running W7 64 professional.
>
> It detects the HP drive and automatically installs some driver.
> This driver shows the same behaviour as the HP driver.
>
> And then there is the IBM driver. Not sure if W7 installs a default driver for that.
> Same story.
>
> What does that tell you?

Not so much, yet.  Presumably HP and IBM offer some kind of backup
utility with the drive software, that you can use to see whether the
drive can accept more that so many Gbytes to write.  Or you could use
whatever simple backup utility comes with Windows to test.  The question
is whether *Windows* based software (not necessarily from Microsoft)
can write more to the drive than mt manages to.  That might be a useful
clue.  However, if other software *can* write more to the drive, the
question remains "How do they do it?" given the apparent OS behavior.

If there are two or three different drivers possible (Windows default,
HP, IBM), it might be interesting to see if the information returned
to cygwin from the Windows OS is the same for each driver ...

Regards -- Eliot Moss

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -