On Wednesday 05 June 2002 04:08 am, Ulrik Sandberg wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Jon LaBadie wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 12:35:31AM +0200, Ulrik Sandberg wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> > Then, fix time stamp so that the new tape has the same time
>> > stamp as the previous entry ('previous' meaning 'below'):
>> >
>> > 20020602 DailySet1-003 reuse
>> > 20020601 DailySet1-002 reuse
>> > 20020531 DailySet1-001 reuse
>> > 20020530 DailySet1-006 reuse <-- time stamp now same as for
>> > 005 20020530 DailySet1-005 reuse
>> > 20020529 DailySet1-004 reuse <-- this tape is due
>>
>> What is the purpose of "dating" the tape.
>> I presume 0 indicates not yet used.
>> Doesn't amanda accept a "new" tape at anytime?
>
>Perhaps. I just quote from
> http://www.backupcentral.com/amanda-18.html :
>
>"Set the date stamp on the new tapes to the same as the previous
> tape, e.g. make them the same for Daily-099 and Daily-100."
>
>So if 005 did have zero, the new 006 should have zero as well. In
> our case, 005 didn't have zero, but 20020530.
AIUI that date string is the date the tape was last used, and helps
amrecover to locate its copy of the tapes index on the server in
the event you needed to recover. It also tells amdump and
amandaidx which index trees to remove from the system when the tape
is being re-used. This information is also on the tape in the
first block if you dd the first block and look at it. But I don't
think the index is removed based on the tape header, rather from
the tapelist entry instead.
John, can you clarify this?
--
Cheers, Gene
AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M
Athlon1600XP@1400mhz 512M
98.96+% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a hillbilly
