Dustin and Jean-Louis, thank you both for your responses. You're right, I did not read the documentation with enough understanding. I assumed that '-b' and 'batch' implied 'background.'
One way the documentation might be improved would be to include this problem as an example, for instance: # Flushes to tape, then ejects tape, all in background: echo 'amflush -b -f daily && mt offline' | at now Thanks, again, for assisting me. -Kevin -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dustin J. Mitchell Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 5:50 PM To: Zembower, Kevin Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Changed behavior of amflush, going to background? On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Zembower, Kevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wow, I would have never guessed that I wanted -f (run in foreground) AND > -b (run in background) together. I assumed that they were mutually > exclusive. Will try out later. I suggest that the documentation be > changed to reflect this capacity. Thanks so much for suggesting this. I'm not sure which documentation you're looking at, but I see "-b: Run Amflush in batch mode". You want it to do a batch run in the foreground, so -b -f makes perfect sense :) That said, if you provide new/changed text, I'll be glad to add it! Dustin -- Storage Software Engineer http://www.zmanda.com
