-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 06 Nov 2004 17:35, Jon LaBadie wrote: > On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 05:14:57AM +0000, Gavin Henry wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > I suspect you have only done one backup, thus only previously used one > > > tape. > > > > > > You think there is an order to the tapes, 2 follows 1 etc. Amanda > > > could care less what "new tape" it writes to next. If you put in tape3 > > > next, amanda's order will have 3 following 1 in the future. If you > > > labelstr allows it (tape.*) amanda will happily use tape-gavin next and > > > tape-henry after that. > > > > > > There seems to be no problem (from what I see anyway). > > > > Only one backup has been done, but why would amadmin config tape give me > > the right next tape, but the e-mail/amcheck doesn't? > > The snarky answer is that they use different logic.
OK. > > Hmm, now the question becomes how and why they use different logic. > I do not recall your saying what tape amadmin config says is due. > I'm guessing it says "tape2" and again, if I recall correctly, > amcheck says "new tape". Yes, that's right. > > I'll first challenge your determination that amadmin is "right". > You have not "used" the number of tapes in your tapecycle yet. Agreed. > So the correct answer, whether you like it or not, is "a new tape" > labelled, but unused previously. So, amcheck saying "new tape" > is correct, because you have not yet written to your entire > tape cycle. It will expect, and use, a new tape with any label > in the drive the next time an amdump is run. As long as it matches the labelstr. > If you had tape2 > in the drive, it would have reported it was a appropriate tape. Yes. > amadmin, without looking at the source, appears to be looking > at the tapelist file and not checking whether a new tape is > required. Yes, OK. > Thus it is just saying this is the next tape listed > in the tapelist file. But it is incorrect because you could > stick in tape 12 at this time and amcheck and amdump would be > happy. Because it matches labelstr, but should they mind? If you number them. But saying that, does the regex require a number in it? If so, it should ask for the next tape in that number sequence. > After the tapes have been used, and their order set, > then amcheck and amdump will be more particular about which > tape is valid. Ok. I will explain this to the client, but I still don't understand this as different server installs report what tape is next with amcheck after running one backup, but this one does not. What about a backup not to tape, i.e in the holding disk? I think i did backup one was done like this. Whould this effect amcheck? > I think the real question is whether it is worth the effort to > get amadmin to do the "have tapecycle number of tapes been used" > check rather than just report the next tape in the tapelist. Yes. - -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. Managing Director. T +44 (0) 1467 624141 M +44 (0) 7930 323266 F +44 (0) 1224 742001 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] Open Source. Open Solutions(tm). http://www.suretecsystems.com/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBjTe8eWseh9tzvqgRAo3bAJ44bNaeuQ9M1dMNQFYAbcwYiSkyvQCfSO6f AJpsjxNasN4UA4C30mWH98Q= =Xaat -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
