>... Is there some set of options that will prevent amanda from
>using --listed-incremental at all? A casual glance at the source implies
>not, but I'm not sure. For instance, it seems that `record no' should
>have this effect. ...
As Alexandre said, it looks like "record no" will do what you want,
although it may not do it the way you expect.
Based on my reading of the code, it works like this. Amanda (regardless
of record yes/no) creates a new listed incremental file (same name with
.new on the end) before the run and that's what is given to GNU tar to
work with. Among other things, this protects against failures part way
through the run.
If this is to be a full dump, the .new file is created but left empty.
If it is an incremental, Amanda copies the old listed incremental file
to the new file.
At the end of the run, **if record is yes** (and some other things),
the .new file is renamed to the "real" listed incremental file, thus
throwing away the information from the previous run. If record is no,
the new file is thrown away.
So as long as you force a level 0 and set "record no", it will still
use --listed-incremental, albeit with an empty file, but not bother the
normal sequence.
>Also, here's a couple of wishlist items.
>
>- Make listed-incremental dirs a per-configuration setting.
I've added this to the list.
>- Make amandad able to talk to more than one amdump at a time without
>getting confused (as the docs imply is now the case).
This is already on the list :-). A workaround is in 2.4.2 that allows
you to specify which port to connect to on the client, so you can have
multiple amandad entries listening in inetd.
Note, however, that because the .new listed incremental file name is a
constant, you'll have conflicts if you try to run more than one amdump
at a time (and thus, is another reason to make the dir config specific).
>It looks like these would require protocol changes. If I were
>hypothetically to work on implementing these, would there be any official
>interest?
Yes, but the protocol change is going to make life really, really hard.
That happened just before I started with Amanda during the 2.3->2.4 update
and I gather it was painful. Better would be another change done first
to allow multiple protocols to exist, then your suggested change can go
in much easier.
>Nate Eldredge
John R. Jackson, Technical Software Specialist, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
