Jon LaBadie wrote:
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'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?
No change. Been that way.
There was an exchange on the list in the last few months where I asked
that question and Dustin replied. He said that the historical algorithm
had a strong preference for an already written tape if one was available
that could be written to. I think he said that now that the new taper
was out he was thinking about implementing a more sane algorithm.
What I did to get around it was to temporarily set my tapecycle to the
total number of tapes, including new ones, currently available. When it
had run through the new tapes, I then put the tapecycle back down a bit.
Everything worked out fine. I think the reason I had not run into the
problem before was because my library only held a part of the tapecycle
number of tapes. So the ones that would have been re-writeable were not
in the library at the time when the new tapes were being encountered and
used. I ran into the problem when I had a new installation and was
filling out the space available in the library.
--
---------------
Chris Hoogendyk
-
O__ ---- Systems Administrator
c/ /'_ --- Biology & Geology Departments
(*) \(*) -- 140 Morrill Science Center
~~~~~~~~~~ - University of Massachusetts, Amherst
<hoogen...@bio.umass.edu>
---------------
Erdös 4
