On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 07:42:36PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Matt Hyclak wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 03:41:34PM +0100, Rodrigo Ventura enlightened us:
> > > tapecycle is the total number of tapes; only these tapes are rotated,
> > > right?
> > 
> > Not exactly. tapecycle is the minimum number of tapes that will be used
> > before any single tape can be overwritten. Many people have a tapecycle less
> > than the total number of tapes so that if a tape happens to go bad, it
> > doesn't hold everything up waiting for a new one.
> 
> Tapecycle is also the number of slots in the virtual tape changer if you use
> vtapes. Actually that isn't completely correct neither, as I found out amtape
> continues scanning after the last accessed tape, but it refuses to scan for
> more than tapecycle tapes in one invocation.
> 
> I'd like to have tapecycle different from the number of slots in the virtual
> tape changer, so I can move vtapes offline, like with a real changer.
> Right now the workaround is to make the number of slots equal to tapecycle, 
> but
> this makes some assumptions I'd prefer not to make.


I presume this is a problem in the changer script, not amtape per se.
What changer script do you use?  Any script hackers want to tackle it?


-- 
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)