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

On Saturday 06 Nov 2004 22:26, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 08:44:39PM +0000, Gavin Henry wrote:
> > On Saturday 06 Nov 2004 17:35, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> I looked over my answer and thought ... should I add that.
> But you are correct.

Thanks.

>
> > > If you had tape2
> > > in the drive, it would have reported it was a appropriate tape.
> >
> > Yes.
>
> And I probably should have said "I think it would say a new tape was
> needed, and that tape2 was ok".  But I wasn't certain, so I did not..

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.
>
> No, nothing about the labeling has any concept of "sequence" with the
> exception of the date ordering of usage of tapes in the tapelist.

Ah, date order.

>
> With a suitable labelstr you could leave off the word "tape" and
> name them 1, 2, ... 13 or with other suitable labelstr you could
> use one, two, ... thirteen, or presidents names or your children
> or famous ducks like Huey, Dewey, and Louis.
>

Yes, I could even change the regex to anything I want.

> > 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.
>
> I don't recall this coming up before so I don't have an answer.

Fair enough.

>
> > 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?
>
> Not certain what you are asking here.

Well, the server that amcheck reports what tape is next, with a fresh compile, 
just like the one in question, had it's first and only backup ran with no 
tape in the drive, only saved in the holding disk. This is what I meant.

So, would this have updated the date use date, even though tape1 wasn't used, 
amcheck still asks for tape2.

Gavin.


- -- 
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)

iD8DBQFBjVLzeWseh9tzvqgRAtMcAJ469kYo747fQVNX/f6DTk0tC3FNJQCdHyJk
Zi8TV+t0MDoB8rJMXcN5zcE=
=4VZy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----