Jean-Louis Martineau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 09:18:07AM -0500, Todd Kover wrote: >> >> > Perhaps a warning should be added to amdump and amcheck to alert >> > users to the situation when tapecycle is less than dumpcycle. >> >> I would think you'd actully care if tapecycle < runspercycle (and I've >> added a warning when this happens to planner and amcheck). > > I think it should be: > tapecycle <= runspercycle * runtapes > but because you might not use runtapes tapes at every run, something like > tapecycle <= #tape_use_in_last_dumpcycle_days
Would the latter in your opinion track additional (manually scheduled) amdump runs that eat up tapes from the normal tape cycle? Manually (out-of-order) scheduled backups reduce the effective tapecycle. -- Matthias Andree Encrypt your mail: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95
