-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Saturday 06 Nov 2004 17:35, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 05:14:57AM +0000, Gavin Henry wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > > I suspect you have only done one backup, thus only previously used one
> > > tape.
> > >
> > > You think there is an order to the tapes, 2 follows 1 etc.  Amanda
> > > could care less what "new tape" it writes to next.  If you put in tape3
> > > next, amanda's order will have 3 following 1 in the future.  If you
> > > labelstr allows it (tape.*) amanda will happily use tape-gavin next and
> > > tape-henry after that.
> > >
> > > There seems to be no problem (from what I see anyway).
> >
> > Only one backup has been done, but why would amadmin config tape give me
> > the right next tape, but the e-mail/amcheck doesn't?
>
> The snarky answer is that they use different logic.

OK.

>
> Hmm, now the question becomes how and why they use different logic.
> I do not recall your saying what tape amadmin config says is due.
> I'm guessing it says "tape2" and again, if I recall correctly,
> amcheck says "new tape".

Yes, that's right.

>
> I'll first challenge your determination that amadmin is "right".
> You have not "used" the number of tapes in your tapecycle yet.

Agreed.

> So the correct answer, whether you like it or not, is "a new tape"
> labelled, but unused previously.  So, amcheck saying "new tape"
> is correct, because you have not yet written to your entire
> tape cycle.  It will expect, and use, a new tape with any label
> in the drive the next time an amdump is run.  

As long as it matches the labelstr.

> If you had tape2 
> in the drive, it would have reported it was a appropriate tape.

Yes.

> amadmin, without looking at the source, appears to be looking
> at the tapelist file and not checking whether a new tape is
> required.  

Yes, OK.

> Thus it is just saying this is the next tape listed 
> in the tapelist file.  But it is incorrect because you could
> stick in tape 12 at this time and amcheck and amdump would be
> happy.  

Because it matches labelstr, but should they mind? If you number them. But 
saying that, does the regex require a number in it? If so, it should ask for 
the next tape in that number sequence.

> After the tapes have been used, and their order set, 
> then amcheck and amdump will be more particular about which
> tape is valid.

Ok. I will explain this to the client, but I still don't understand this as 
different server installs report what tape is next with amcheck after running 
one backup, but this one does not.

What about a backup not to tape, i.e in the holding disk? I think i did backup 
one was done like this. Whould this effect amcheck?

> I think the real question is whether it is worth the effort to
> get amadmin to do the "have tapecycle number of tapes been used"
> check rather than just report the next tape in the tapelist.

Yes.

- -- 
Kind Regards,

Gavin Henry.
Managing Director.

T +44 (0) 1467 624141
M +44 (0) 7930 323266
F +44 (0) 1224 742001
E ghenry AT suretecsystems DOT com

Open Source. Open Solutions(tm).

http://www.suretecsystems.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBjTe8eWseh9tzvqgRAo3bAJ44bNaeuQ9M1dMNQFYAbcwYiSkyvQCfSO6f
AJpsjxNasN4UA4C30mWH98Q=
=Xaat
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----