Jean-Louis Martineau <martinea AT iro.umontreal DOT ca> writes:

> On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 09:18:07AM -0500, Todd Kover wrote:
>> 
>>  > Perhaps a warning should be added to amdump and amcheck to alert
>>  > users to the situation when tapecycle is less than dumpcycle.
>> 
>> I would think you'd actully care if tapecycle < runspercycle (and I've
>> added a warning when this happens to planner and amcheck).
>
> I think it should be:
>   tapecycle <= runspercycle * runtapes
> but because you might not use runtapes tapes at every run, something like
>   tapecycle <= #tape_use_in_last_dumpcycle_days

Would the latter in your opinion track additional (manually scheduled)
amdump runs that eat up tapes from the normal tape cycle? Manually
(out-of-order) scheduled backups reduce the effective tapecycle.

-- 
Matthias Andree

Encrypt your mail: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95