On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 02:11:34PM -0700, Kevin Dalley wrote: > > > Matt Hyclak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] JG Computing 4455 Province Line Road (609) 252-0159 Princeton, NJ 08540-4322 (609) 683-7220 (fax)