On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 02:23:32PM -0400, Jean-Francois Malouin wrote:
> Jon,
>
> * Jon LaBadie <j...@jgcomp.com> [20100827 14:05]:
> > Perhaps my memory is slipping, but I recall amanda
> > would use a new tape if it encountered one. I.e.
> > it wouldn't search for the specific tape in the
> > past rotation if it encountered a new tape first.
> >
> > The current release of amanda seems to ignore all
> > new tapes even if there are a hundred new, labelled
> > tapes.
>
> I started a thread on this called 'No acceptable volumes found'
> in August. You might want to read it.
>
> I had the same problem you mention: after adding 30 new tapes
> to the tapecycle amanda was still refusing to use them and prefered
> the old already written tapes...
I remember there was such a thread. I look at it.
> >
> > I've typically configured amanda with tapecycle a
> > few less than the number actually labelled and in
> > rotation. An benefit this obtains is when a tape
> > goes bad, or otherwise is missing, amanda does
> > not have to go into degraded mode because no
> > usable tape is found.
> >
> > Was this an intentional change in taper policy?
>
> From what I understand from Dustin in the above mentionned thread is
> that the taper scanner algorithm ('traditional') is doing what it says
> and that I (and you) were living out of an undocumented feature from
> the previous versions...
>
It was "documented" in the sense of the behavior being mentioned many
times in this list.
Have you had any experience with setting tapecycle to match the
actual number of tapes and reducing it after a complete cycle?
Thanks for the info.
--
Jon H. LaBadie j...@jgcomp.com
JG Computing
12027 Creekbend Drive (703) 787-0884
Reston, VA 20194 (703) 787-0922 (fax)
