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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] JG Computing 4455 Province Line Road (609) 252-0159 Princeton, NJ 08540-4322 (609) 683-7220 (fax)