On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Jon LaBadie <j...@jgcomp.com> wrote: > Thinking about a recent post caused me to wonder > about the bumpdays directive. Is it truely > measured in "days" as opposed to "amdump runs"?
Neither, actually - it's measured in tapes / runtapes. So if your runtapes is large but seldom reached, you may go significantly longer than bumpdays days even with only one run a day. Note that ordinarily Amanda's concept of "day" is related to "runs" by the ratio dumpcycle (days) : runspercycle (runs), although that is not the case for bumpdays. The difference between runs and days only became apparent with the addition of usetimestamps, and wasn't completely integrated. A similar thing happend with the difference between parts and dumps when splitting was introduced, which led to a lot of difficult-to-reproduce quirks of amreport (for example, in some cases it considers a dump to be on a particular tape if the *last* part of the dump is on the tape, while in other cases it considers a dump to be on a tape if the *first* part of the dump is on the tape). Not to get all nostalgic already, but as Amanda development continues, it's important to try to incorporate changes like these *fully* into Amanda, preferably through the creation of better abstractions, rather than loosely bolting them on. Jon, if you and I and others can keep an eagle-eye on changes to Amanda for that purpose, I think it would do the project a world of good. To that end, we should all probably have a hard look at the results of amvault (there are some known gotchas in the manpage, and probably some unknown) and the multi-taper support (I'm sure there are some edge cases here; I just haven't found them). That's a big part of the rationale for the 3.2.0beta1 release. Dustin -- Open Source Storage Engineer http://www.zmanda.com
