On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 12:31:57PM -0400, Jean-Francois Malouin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> What happens when a DLE on a client goes to tape directly (PORT-WRITE)
> because it can't fit in the holding disk and it bigger than tape
> capacity? Is it possible to use tape spanning in that case?

I don't believe holding disk or direct to tape matters to
the tape spanning feature.

> 
> One more: I have this DLE on a client using a tape-spanning dumptype
> along with calcsize. Previously I was using excludes/includes but
> yesterday I decided to have a go with spanning. I thought I'd fool
> amanda by not forcing a full dump but then this situation happens:

Its not nice to fool Mother Amanda ;)

What do excludes/includes have to do with tape spanning?  Do you mean
you created a new DLE that covered several DLE you previously used?
If so, it must do a level 0.

> calcsize reported a incremental of 32MB but that was way off as 11
> chunks of 9GB were written to tape (8 on one tape and 3 others on the
> next tape) then amanda reported 'dump to tape filed' and gave up.
> Since that DLE is over 200GB and the holdingdisk use is 100GB I
> suspect amanda gave because it thought that there was no more holdind
> disk. amdump Right?

I may be mistaken, but I don't think that is right.  Amanda would not
start to tape from the holding disk unless the DLE was complete on the
holding disk.  And if it was going direct to tape, the holding disk
is not involved.

Are you sure those "11 x 9GB = 99GB" weren't just the entire dump
after compression?

-- 
Jon H. LaBadie                  jon AT jgcomp DOT com
 JG Computing
 4455 Province Line Road        (609) 252-0159
 Princeton, NJ  08540-4322      (609) 683-7220 (fax)