Dustin and Jean-Louis, thank you both for your responses. You're right,
I did not read the documentation with enough understanding. I assumed
that '-b' and 'batch' implied 'background.'

One way the documentation might be improved would be to include this
problem as an example, for instance:
   # Flushes to tape, then ejects tape, all in background:
   echo 'amflush -b -f daily && mt offline' | at now 

Thanks, again, for assisting me.

-Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-amanda-users AT amanda DOT org
[mailto:owner-amanda-users AT amanda DOT org] On Behalf Of Dustin J. Mitchell
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 5:50 PM
To: Zembower, Kevin
Cc: amanda-users AT amanda DOT org
Subject: Re: Changed behavior of amflush, going to background?

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Zembower, Kevin <kzembowe AT jhuccp DOT org>
wrote:
> Wow, I would have never guessed that I wanted -f (run in foreground)
AND
>  -b (run in background) together. I assumed that they were mutually
>  exclusive. Will try out later. I suggest that the documentation be
>  changed to reflect this capacity. Thanks so much for suggesting this.

I'm not sure which documentation you're looking at, but I see "-b: Run
Amflush in batch mode".  You want it to do a batch run in the
foreground, so -b -f makes perfect sense :)

That said, if you provide new/changed text, I'll be glad to add it!

Dustin

-- 
Storage Software Engineer
http://www.zmanda.com