On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 03:53:23PM +0200, Toralf Lund wrote:
> Paul Bijnens wrote:
> 
> >Toralf Lund wrote:
> >
> >>I'm thinking about using more than one tape, i.e. set "runtapes" 
> >>parameter to a value > 1, for my updated archival setup. Is there 
> >>anything special I need to keep in mind when doing this? Also, how do 
> >>I set up runspercycle in this case? Is it the total number of tapes 
> >>runspercycle * runtapes, or just runspercycle?
> >
> >
> >runspercycle does not need to be changed.  The "runtapes" means that
> >for each run up to that number of tapes may be used (note: not "must").
> 
> >You have to increase your tapecycle probably to cover the same 
> >dumpcycle(s), because you'll burn twice as much tapes for each run.
> >(well, "burn", hopefully not litteraly).
> 
> I'm still not sure I understand. If I have
> 
> runspercycle 2
> 
> and
> 
> runtapes 2
> 
> will amanda try to distribute the full dumps across 4 tapes, or just 2?
> 
> When I think about it, the first answer makes most sense, as the 
> parameter otherwise ought to have been called "tapespercycle".

"Sense" is a funny thing.

Amanda will "try" to fit each run on a single tape.  But will use a
second tape during that run if necessary.  Thus the answer is "it depends".
It will try to use 2 tapes, but may use 3 or 4.

BTW I find it strange that an "archival" configuration would be setup with
a dumpcycle > 0 (or 1?) and with runspercycle > 1.

When I want an archive dump I want it to be the state of the system now.
Not the current state of half the DLE's and incrementals from the last
'archive' of the other half.  Maybe that is just me ;)
-- 
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)