Amanda-Users

Re: amrecover with file: driver

2004-01-26 03:49:31
Subject: Re: amrecover with file: driver
From: JC Simonetti <simonetti-amanda AT echo DOT fr>
To: Marc Langlois <marc AT keyseismic DOT com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:42:30 +0100
amrecover does not change the tape by itself.
You have to keep in mind that the "chg-disk" emulates a robotic with the hard 
drive. And amrecover (certainly due to security reasons that I won't discuss 
here) does not automatically search the correct tape in the robot: the tape(s) 
you want to use when restoring have to be in the tape device when needed.
In my case I have 2 xterms, one with amrecover, and the other one where I run 
amtape to load the right tape when amrecover tells me to do it.


On 22 Jan 2004 11:54:11 -0700
Marc Langlois <marc AT keyseismic DOT com> wrote:

> Stefan,
> 
> The settape section of the man page for amrecover says:
>              
> "settape [[server]:][tapedev|default]
> 
> If  you  want amrecover to use your changer, the tapedev must be equal
> to the amrecover_changer setting on the server."
> 
> I used this setting in amanda.conf:
> 
> amrecover_changer chg-disk
> 
> then, in amrecover:
> 
> settape chg-disk
> 
> and the extract invokes the chg-disk script and sets the "./data"
> sym-link to the correct slot automatically. Very nice!
> 
> Marc.
>                                                                               
>                                                       
> 
> It appears that using "settape chg-disk" in amrecover 
> On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 09:17, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> > Hi, Marc,
> > 
> > on Donnerstag, 22. Jänner 2004 at 16:59 you wrote to amanda-users:
> > 
> > ML> I'm using the chg-disk changer. Does amrecover use the changer script?
> > 
> > Good question. There is the parameter amrecover_changer which
> > explicitly sets the changer used. Maybe you try to set this in your
> > conf.
> > 
> > ML> And would it be possible to modify the script to choose the correct
> > ML> slot?
> > 
> > As soon as I know it I will tell you ;)
> > Practically YES, it is possible.
> 




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>