-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 06 Nov 2004 22:26, Jon LaBadie wrote: > On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 08:44:39PM +0000, Gavin Henry wrote: > > On Saturday 06 Nov 2004 17:35, Jon LaBadie wrote: > > > 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. > > I looked over my answer and thought ... should I add that. > But you are correct.
Thanks. > > > > If you had tape2 > > > in the drive, it would have reported it was a appropriate tape. > > > > Yes. > > And I probably should have said "I think it would say a new tape was > needed, and that tape2 was ok". But I wasn't certain, so I did not.. 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. > > No, nothing about the labeling has any concept of "sequence" with the > exception of the date ordering of usage of tapes in the tapelist. Ah, date order. > > With a suitable labelstr you could leave off the word "tape" and > name them 1, 2, ... 13 or with other suitable labelstr you could > use one, two, ... thirteen, or presidents names or your children > or famous ducks like Huey, Dewey, and Louis. > Yes, I could even change the regex to anything I want. > > 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. > > I don't recall this coming up before so I don't have an answer. Fair enough. > > > 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? > > Not certain what you are asking here. Well, the server that amcheck reports what tape is next, with a fresh compile, just like the one in question, had it's first and only backup ran with no tape in the drive, only saved in the holding disk. This is what I meant. So, would this have updated the date use date, even though tape1 wasn't used, amcheck still asks for tape2. Gavin. - -- 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) iD8DBQFBjVLzeWseh9tzvqgRAtMcAJ469kYo747fQVNX/f6DTk0tC3FNJQCdHyJk Zi8TV+t0MDoB8rJMXcN5zcE= =4VZy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
