On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> 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?

chg-disk

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                                                Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert AT linux-m68k 
DOT org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                                            -- Linus Torvalds