2005/9/14, Jon LaBadie <jon AT jgcomp DOT com>:
> 
> I'm beginning to wonder if the reporting is faulty.  I.e. the actual
> reason some dumpers is idle is not lack of holding space, but some
> idle time is mistakenly assigned to the no-hold category.
> 
> I looked briefly at the source to driver.c.  That is the only place
> I found that the string "no-hold" is used.  It seems to me that a
> variable holding the reason for an idle dumper is not reset in a
> loop in driver.c.  Thus, if some time there is a "no-hold" reason,
> perhaps the reason stays at "no-hold" for other reasons.
> 
> There might be minor support for my theory if you have one or more
> DLEs that specifically invoke the 'holdingdisk no' parameter.  For
> example, when the partition that contains the holdingdisk is backed
> up, often the use of the holdingdisk is prevented by the DLE.
> 
> I'll post a not to the hackers list describing my theory.  Maybe
> someone who understands the code can confirm or reject it.
> 

OK Thanks. I do have a single DLE that has the "holding disk no"
parameter, and that is my holding disk. I think you MUST specify
no-hold if you are backing up the holding disk.