On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 14:49 -0500, Dan Langille wrote: > Dirk Bartley wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 14:20 -0500, Dan Langille wrote: > >> Dirk Bartley wrote: > >>> Greetings > >>> > >>> Can someone tell me if there is a different behaviour in the latest > >>> version? A job started on Friday for a monthly pool. I use a single > >>> tape drive with no changer. The tape that was asked for was in a safe > >>> in a different building. Other tapes for the monthly pool were > >>> available and appendable. My recollection was that previously I could > >>> put a tape in the appropriate pool in the drive, and as long as it was > >>> appendable in the media list, the job would proceed with that tape. > > Your recollection is not quite correct. The Volume must also be in the > right pool, and the Status must be either Append or Recycle
That is curious. Because the pool was the correct pool, that status was correct as status=append. The property I changed was the recycle flag on that one tape that I happened to have available and empty. This is the first tape I have ever set the recycle flag to yes in my years of using bacula and I have always been able to append in the past. There may be a confusion between status=recycle and recycleflag=yes. My status on the rejected tapes was append and the pool was correct. > > >>> Bacula kept insisting that I use the tape it wanted from that pool, not > >>> the tape from that pool I had inserted. I had to put in a tape I had > >>> for the Monthly pool that was appendable, emtpy and then mark it as > >>> recyle=yes to get the job started. > >>> > >>> Is this something different?? > >> I do not know the answer to your question. > >> > >> After inserting the tape, did you issue a mount command? > > > Yes, I did attempt a few times to issue the mount command. In the > > console window, the director responded to the mount with something to > > the effect of "Unable to use tape LTO_MON_03. The a tape must be in > > the monthly pool, must be appendable and must have the recycle flag > > set to yes." > > Clearly this tape was not acceptable for the job in question. > Therefore, Bacula was correctly rejected it. Not exactly sure about what is so clear about that. I hypothesize the difference may be that I did not have a tape in when the scheduled job started. Then after the job was started, it was quite insistent on asking for the tape that was in the other building at the time or getting a tape with with status->append and the recycle flag set for the monthly pool. It seems to me the requirement that I insert a tape that has recycle=yes is not essential as long as the tape meets the criterion of correct pool and status=append. > > > Because of the message, I decided not to attempt to use a tape that > > was partially filled, by setting it's recyle flag to yes. My > > understanding is that recycling a tape would purge the existing jobs > > from the tape, which was not what I desired. > > Yes, recycling overwrites the existing data on the Volume. Which is not what I desired. So it certainly was a good that in this instace I did not set recycle=yes to one of the previously written to tapes. > > So far, everything you have described is what I would expect Bacula to do. > As always, thank you so very much for the input. Dirk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
