On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:39:49AM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 04:28:02PM -0800, John Oliver wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 05:26:59PM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> > > Just a guess, but I'd say it's because "0" is not a valid date, so
> > > those lines are being ignored completely.
> > 
> > Those lines are what results when you amlabel a tape.  If your
> > surmisation was correct, amanda would never use any tapes.
> 
> No, if my guess is correct, amanda would never ask by name for a tape
> that hasn't been used yet and would instead ask simply for "a new tape".
> This is, incidentally, exactly what the original question described
> happening.

But, after I amlabeled the new tapes, it *did* ask for them by number,
from the bottom of the tapelist up.

> It has been long enough since I last added tapes to my rotation that I
> don't recall whether this is what I saw, but it seems like a reasonable
> behaviour to me (why should amanda prefer one unused tape over another?),
> so I would have considered it unremarkable if I had seen it.

It *does* care.  It takes tapes from the bottom of the tapelist.  I
proved this at one point when I added some new tapes, looked at the
tapelist, and put it in "order". :-)

-- 
John Oliver, CCNA                            http://www.john-oliver.net/
Linux/UNIX/network consulting         http://www.john-oliver.net/resume/
***               sendmail, Apache, ftp, DNS, spam filtering         ***
****                Colocation, T1s, web/email/ftp hosting          ****