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 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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