Am 05.04.22 um 14:39 schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger:
At two amanda-installations on Debian11 I see this lately:
both setups use an aggregate setup of multiple external usb disks with
vtapes on them.
That worked well for years.
Now I get errors because amanda does not find valid tapes on one or more
external disks.
"amtape config inventory" shows the vtapes, but "amcheck -t config"
tells me "No acceptable volumes found".
If I relabel a tape "amlabel -f vtape_usb vtape_usb-002-004 slot 1:4"
it gets detected again:
$ amcheck -t vtape_usb
Amanda Tape Server Host Check
-----------------------------
mount: /mnt/externaldisk01: can't find
UUID=98cb03d6-e95e-462d-a823-6011b37c9f42.
slot 1:4: volume 'vtape_usb-002-004'
Will write to volume 'vtape_usb-002-004' in slot 1:4.
NOTE: skipping tape-writable test
Server check took 6.673 seconds
(brought to you by Amanda 3.5.1)
(externaldisk01 is absent: OK, externaldisk02 is connected)
I assume I should grep through some debug logs. What and where to look for?
Still seeing these issues. I have to relabel every day, that is not the
way a backup setup should work like.
See this tapelist, I wonder about that META column.
/etc/amanda/vtape_usb/tapelist
20220412084458 vtape_usb-002-006 reuse META:vtape_usb-003 BLOCKSIZE:32
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220411123301 vtape_usb-002-017 reuse META:vtape_usb-003 BLOCKSIZE:32
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220408224501 vtape_usb-002-016 reuse META:vtape_usb-003 BLOCKSIZE:32
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220408224501 vtape_usb-002-015 reuse META:vtape_usb-003 BLOCKSIZE:32
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220407224501 vtape_usb-002-014 reuse META:vtape_usb-003 BLOCKSIZE:32
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220407073600 vtape_usb-002-013 reuse META:vtape_usb-003 BLOCKSIZE:32
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220405224501 vtape_usb-002-005 reuse META:vtape_usb-002 BLOCKSIZE:32
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220405224501 vtape_usb-002-004 reuse META:vtape_usb-002 BLOCKSIZE:32
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220405132318 vtape_usb-002-003 reuse META:vtape_usb-002 BLOCKSIZE:32
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220405120227 vtape_usb-002-001 reuse META:vtape_usb-002 BLOCKSIZE:32
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220321224501 vtape_usb-002-012 reuse META:vtape_usb-002 BLOCKSIZE:32
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220320224501 vtape_usb-002-011 reuse META:vtape_usb-002 BLOCKSIZE:32
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220320224501 vtape_usb-002-010 reuse META:vtape_usb-002 BLOCKSIZE:32
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220319224501 vtape_usb-002-009 reuse META:vtape_usb-002 BLOCKSIZE:32
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220319224501 vtape_usb-002-008 reuse META:vtape_usb-002 BLOCKSIZE:32
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220318224501 vtape_usb-002-007 reuse META:vtape_usb-002 BLOCKSIZE:32
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
what about that meta label?
Is it a problem that it is duplicate?
