On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 02:11:34PM -0700, Kevin Dalley wrote:
> 
> 
> Matt Hyclak <hyclak AT math.ohiou DOT edu> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 01:26:49PM -0700, Kevin Dalley enlightened us:
> >> Thanks for the suggestion.  Setting record to no seems like a good idea.
> >> 
> >> However, dumpcycle set to 0 doesn't work for me.  amdump tries to run
> >> a full backup each day.  I only use 1 or 2 tapes per amdump, and I
> >> need 6-10 tapes for a complete archival backup.  So I need a few days
> >> to complete an archival backup.  Setting dumpcycle to 0 seems force
> >> the full backups to start all over again each day, which means that
> >> DLEs are repeated.
> >>
> >
> > Do you not have enough holding disk space to hold the entire dump set? You
> > didn't say how big your tapes were, or how much data was getting dumped. If
> > you have enough holding space, you can run the amdump, let it spool to
> > holding disk, then just amflush until you've got everything to tape.
> >
> > The other option is that amdump can take hostnames as options, so you could
> > run the job with a select number of hosts over a few day period. 
> 
> 
> No.  I don't have enough disk space to hold the entire dump at once.
> Sorry for not mentioning it.  There's enough space for the daily
> amdump, but not for a complete archival dump.
> 
> Adding the hostname (and disk for the Windows machines) should solve
> my problem.  Thanks for the suggestion.
> 

Another possibility might be to do similar to your original
arrangement, long dumpcycle, no increments, then run amadmin
to force level 0 backups of specific DLE's the next run.
Then do the archival run for just those.  Repeat as needed.

-- 
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)