On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:39:49AM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 04:28:02PM -0800, John Oliver wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 05:26:59PM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote: > > > Just a guess, but I'd say it's because "0" is not a valid date, so > > > those lines are being ignored completely. > > > > Those lines are what results when you amlabel a tape. If your > > surmisation was correct, amanda would never use any tapes. > > No, if my guess is correct, amanda would never ask by name for a tape > that hasn't been used yet and would instead ask simply for "a new tape". > This is, incidentally, exactly what the original question described > happening.
But, after I amlabeled the new tapes, it *did* ask for them by number, from the bottom of the tapelist up. > It has been long enough since I last added tapes to my rotation that I > don't recall whether this is what I saw, but it seems like a reasonable > behaviour to me (why should amanda prefer one unused tape over another?), > so I would have considered it unremarkable if I had seen it. It *does* care. It takes tapes from the bottom of the tapelist. I proved this at one point when I added some new tapes, looked at the tapelist, and put it in "order". :-) -- John Oliver, CCNA http://www.john-oliver.net/ Linux/UNIX/network consulting http://www.john-oliver.net/resume/ *** sendmail, Apache, ftp, DNS, spam filtering *** **** Colocation, T1s, web/email/ftp hosting ****
