On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:46:03AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2001, Joshua E Warchol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hmm, that seems to go counter to what I believe Amanda wants to
> > do. During a normal amdump session it will not write to tape 10 if
> > it expects tape 9
>
> If tape 10 is not one of the latest `tapecycle - 1' tapes, Amanda will
> accept to overwrite it.
If I interpret this properly, I could have a tapecycle of 18, but
actually have more tapes in use? I had assumed that the size of
the tapelist file was expected to match tapecycle. Bad assumption?
jl
--
Jon H. LaBadie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JG Computing [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4455 Province Line Road (609) 252-0159
Princeton, NJ 08540-4322 (609) 683-7220 (fax)
