On Thursday 13 February 2003 02:53, Michael Robbert wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>>On Wednesday 12 February 2003 19:23, Michael Robbert wrote:
>>>Here is an update on the problem that I sent yesterday. I had
>>>entered my DDS4backup into cron and last night the backup
>>>actually worked, sort of. It looks like it wrote to the tape in
>>>slot one, which I labeled DDS4backup01, but the report says that
>>>it was labeled DDS4backup05. Below you'll find the results of
>>>todays amcheck, all tapes appear to be labeled DDS4backup05, but
>>>that is not how I labeled them. I am guessing that tonights
>>>backup will fail because it can't seem to find another tape.
>>>A second question I have is about the number of slots to put
>>> into my changer.conf. I am using the first 5 slots for backup
>>> tapes and slot 6 is always a cleaning tape. If I configure
>>> lastslot=5 and cleanslot=6 then "amtape DDS4backup clean" gives
>>> the following error: amtape: device 0 not clean: Slot 6 is out
>>> of range (1 - 5) If I then change lastslot=6 then I get the
>>> problem that you'll notice below. Amanda will cycle through the
>>> cleaning tape thinking that it is a normal tape. I am using
>>>tpchanger=chg-zd-mtx in my amanda.conf.
>>>
>>>----- Forwarded message from Amanda user
>>><amanda AT fractal.Mines DOT EDU> -----
>>>
>>>Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:04:15 -0700
>
From: Amanda user <amanda AT fractal.Mines DOT EDU>
>
>>>To: amanda AT fractal.Mines DOT EDU, mrobbert AT mines DOT edu
>>>Subject: DDS4backup AMANDA PROBLEM: FIX BEFORE RUN, IF POSSIBLE
>>>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-98.9 required=5.0
>>>     tests=DOUBLE_CAPSWORD,USER_IN_WHITELIST
>>>     version=2.31
>>>
>>>Amanda Tape Server Host Check
>>>-----------------------------
>>>Holding disk /holding/amanda: 6128768 KB disk space available,
>>>using 6026368 KB Holding disk /storage/amanda: 40446788 KB disk
>>>space available, using 40344388 KB
>>>amcheck-server: slot 2: date 20030212 label DDS4backup05 (active
>>> tape) amcheck-server: slot 3: date 20030212 label DDS4backup05
>>> (active tape) amcheck-server: slot 4: date 20030212 label
>>> DDS4backup05 (active tape) amcheck-server: slot 5: date
>>> 20030212 label DDS4backup05 (active tape) amcheck-server: fatal
>>> slot 6: Cleaning Cartridge Installed and Ejected
>>
>>Gaack! Either its not advancing the magazine, or you've labeled
>> all tapes alike. If the latter, I'm fairly certain that amlabel
>> would have had a litter of kittens over that.
>>
>>Which is it?
>
>Neither, I have watched it advance the tapes and you can tell by
> the fact that it loaded a cleaning tape from slot 6 that
> different tapes are getting used. And I am sure that I labeled
> all these tapes properly, I had to use -f because amlabel thought
> they were labeled even before I labeled them.  I also know that
> this isn't acurate because when I watch the drive it loads the
> tape, but never rewinds or reads the tape to see what label is
> actually on it.

Thats odd unless this changer has a barcode reader or some other 
means of identifying the tape.

The tapes should be labeled with some sort of a unique label per 
tape, and one that satisfies the regex pattern in your amanda.conf.
When labeling new tapes with a never before used label, one 
shouldn't need to use the -f option.

If they are in fact labeled as DDS4Backup01, DDS4Backup02, 
DDS4Backup03 etc then the -f option shouldn't be needed.

Please post the label pattern line from your amanda.conf.

>>>ERROR: new tape not found in rack
>>>      (expecting a new tape)
>>>NOTE: skipping tape-writable test
>>>NOTE: info dir
>>> /var/lib/amanda/DDS4backup/curinfo/ito/_usr_local: does not
>>> exist NOTE: index dir
>>>/var/lib/amanda/DDS4backup/index/ito/_usr_local: does not exist
>>>NOTE: info dir /var/lib/amanda/DDS4backup/curinfo/ito/_u1: does
>>>not exist NOTE: index dir
>>>/var/lib/amanda/DDS4backup/index/ito/_u1: does not exist Server
>>>check took 254.892 seconds

Ahh, I missed that line.  Can I blame it on the poor formatting as 
it was rx'd here?  Ny apologies in any event.

>>>Amanda Backup Client Hosts Check
>>>--------------------------------
>>>Client check: 1 host checked in 0.510 seconds, 0 problems found
>>
>>This settles it.
>>
>>Its not advancing the tape then, and it obviously read all that
>>from the drives buffers. So something is amiss in the changer
>>script setup.  This amount of tape checking should have taken a
>> time measured in minutes, not just fractions of a second.
>
>The tape check took 254.892 seconds(over 4 minutes), it was the
> client host check that only took 0.510 seconds

-- 
Cheers, Gene
AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M
Athlon1600XP@1400mhz  512M
99.23% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly