Re: amcheck not saying "expecting tapeno. or a new tape"
On Saturday 06 November 2004 17:40, Gavin Henry wrote: >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >Hash: SHA1 > >On Saturday 06 Nov 2004 22:26, Jon LaBadie wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 08:44:39PM +, Gavin Henry wrote: >> > On Saturday 06 Nov 2004 17:35, Jon LaBadie wrote: >> > > So the correct answer, whether you like it or not, is "a new >> > > tape" labelled, but unused previously. So, amcheck saying >> > > "new tape" is correct, because you have not yet written to >> > > your entire tape cycle. It will expect, and use, a new tape >> > > with any label in the drive the next time an amdump is run. >> > >> > As long as it matches the labelstr. >> >> I looked over my answer and thought ... should I add that. >> But you are correct. > >Thanks. > >> > > If you had tape2 >> > > in the drive, it would have reported it was a appropriate >> > > tape. >> > >> > Yes. >> >> And I probably should have said "I think it would say a new tape >> was needed, and that tape2 was ok". But I wasn't certain, so I >> did not.. > >OK. > >> > > Thus it is just saying this is the next tape listed >> > > in the tapelist file. But it is incorrect because you could >> > > stick in tape 12 at this time and amcheck and amdump would be >> > > happy. >> > >> > Because it matches labelstr, but should they mind? If you number >> > them. But saying that, does the regex require a number in it? If >> > so, it should ask for the next tape in that number sequence. >> >> No, nothing about the labeling has any concept of "sequence" with >> the exception of the date ordering of usage of tapes in the >> tapelist. > >Ah, date order. > >> With a suitable labelstr you could leave off the word "tape" and >> name them 1, 2, ... 13 or with other suitable labelstr you could >> use one, two, ... thirteen, or presidents names or your children >> or famous ducks like Huey, Dewey, and Louis. > >Yes, I could even change the regex to anything I want. > >> > Ok. I will explain this to the client, but I still don't >> > understand this as different server installs report what tape is >> > next with amcheck after running one backup, but this one does >> > not. >> >> I don't recall this coming up before so I don't have an answer. > >Fair enough. > >> > What about a backup not to tape, i.e in the holding disk? I >> > think i did backup one was done like this. Whould this effect >> > amcheck? >> >> Not certain what you are asking here. > >Well, the server that amcheck reports what tape is next, with a > fresh compile, just like the one in question, had it's first and > only backup ran with no tape in the drive, only saved in the > holding disk. This is what I meant. > >So, would this have updated the date use date, even though tape1 > wasn't used, amcheck still asks for tape2. > >Gavin. > Humm, jumping in here, I do believe thats whats happening here when it overruns the available tapesize set in amanda.conf's definition, effectively hitting an EOT. Somehow its skipping the next tape in the sequence on the next run, and I'd bet thats the real problem. The erronious updating of the tapelist's next entry, making it look as if its freshly used so it gets skipped. My slotxx's are getting into a rather scrambled order for this, or a similar reason. However, if I run a flush operation BEFORE I run an amcheck, then it doesn't seem to appear. Maybe thats another clue? There's another bug too, when that happens. It doesn't appear to be 'rewinding' the vtape in the verify phase, and the amverify report that immediately follows in my script is then 100% error messages, only if the EOT has been hit. I can manually "rewind" it, then run an amverify against that slot, and its fine till it hits the end of the truncated file. A suggestion to the amanda-hackers (I'm not on that list): In the vtape situation, commonly its all on one big drive or maybe even a raid of some kind, so it really wouldn't hurt too much if the tapesize was checked for EOT only before the opening of the next file to be written, so that the current file could be written in its entirety even if it did overrun the tapesize by 500 or more megs because on a disk it doesn't hurt till the disk is full. That file would then be written in its entirety, and would not have to be duplicated, thereby wasting the drive space for the truncated version. It would in these cases, be an overall plus in better drive space utilization in the grand scheme of things. Either that, or delete the unfinished file, in either case saveing that drive space for usable data in whole files. With all the data shuffling I've done over the last couple of weeks as FC3 is about to be released, I'd bet a bottle of suds that more than 5% of my drive is truncated files right now. Thats 5GB! >- -- >Kind Regards, > >Gavin Henry. -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) 99.28% setiathome rank
Re: amcheck not saying "expecting tapeno. or a new tape"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 06 Nov 2004 22:26, Jon LaBadie wrote: > On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 08:44:39PM +, Gavin Henry wrote: > > On Saturday 06 Nov 2004 17:35, Jon LaBadie wrote: > > > So the correct answer, whether you like it or not, is "a new tape" > > > labelled, but unused previously. So, amcheck saying "new tape" > > > is correct, because you have not yet written to your entire > > > tape cycle. It will expect, and use, a new tape with any label > > > in the drive the next time an amdump is run. > > > > As long as it matches the labelstr. > > I looked over my answer and thought ... should I add that. > But you are correct. Thanks. > > > > If you had tape2 > > > in the drive, it would have reported it was a appropriate tape. > > > > Yes. > > And I probably should have said "I think it would say a new tape was > needed, and that tape2 was ok". But I wasn't certain, so I did not.. OK. > > > Thus it is just saying this is the next tape listed > > > in the tapelist file. But it is incorrect because you could > > > stick in tape 12 at this time and amcheck and amdump would be > > > happy. > > > > Because it matches labelstr, but should they mind? If you number them. > > But saying that, does the regex require a number in it? If so, it should > > ask for the next tape in that number sequence. > > No, nothing about the labeling has any concept of "sequence" with the > exception of the date ordering of usage of tapes in the tapelist. Ah, date order. > > With a suitable labelstr you could leave off the word "tape" and > name them 1, 2, ... 13 or with other suitable labelstr you could > use one, two, ... thirteen, or presidents names or your children > or famous ducks like Huey, Dewey, and Louis. > Yes, I could even change the regex to anything I want. > > Ok. I will explain this to the client, but I still don't understand this > > as different server installs report what tape is next with amcheck after > > running one backup, but this one does not. > > I don't recall this coming up before so I don't have an answer. Fair enough. > > > What about a backup not to tape, i.e in the holding disk? I think i did > > backup one was done like this. Whould this effect amcheck? > > Not certain what you are asking here. Well, the server that amcheck reports what tape is next, with a fresh compile, just like the one in question, had it's first and only backup ran with no tape in the drive, only saved in the holding disk. This is what I meant. So, would this have updated the date use date, even though tape1 wasn't used, amcheck still asks for tape2. Gavin. - -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. Managing Director. T +44 (0) 1467 624141 M +44 (0) 7930 323266 F +44 (0) 1224 742001 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] Open Source. Open Solutions(tm). http://www.suretecsystems.com/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBjVLzeWseh9tzvqgRAtMcAJ469kYo747fQVNX/f6DTk0tC3FNJQCdHyJk Zi8TV+t0MDoB8rJMXcN5zcE= =4VZy -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: amcheck not saying "expecting tapeno. or a new tape"
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 08:44:39PM +, Gavin Henry wrote: > On Saturday 06 Nov 2004 17:35, Jon LaBadie wrote: > > > > So the correct answer, whether you like it or not, is "a new tape" > > labelled, but unused previously. So, amcheck saying "new tape" > > is correct, because you have not yet written to your entire > > tape cycle. It will expect, and use, a new tape with any label > > in the drive the next time an amdump is run. > > As long as it matches the labelstr. I looked over my answer and thought ... should I add that. But you are correct. > > If you had tape2 > > in the drive, it would have reported it was a appropriate tape. > > Yes. And I probably should have said "I think it would say a new tape was needed, and that tape2 was ok". But I wasn't certain, so I did not.. > > > Thus it is just saying this is the next tape listed > > in the tapelist file. But it is incorrect because you could > > stick in tape 12 at this time and amcheck and amdump would be > > happy. > > Because it matches labelstr, but should they mind? If you number them. But > saying that, does the regex require a number in it? If so, it should ask for > the next tape in that number sequence. No, nothing about the labeling has any concept of "sequence" with the exception of the date ordering of usage of tapes in the tapelist. With a suitable labelstr you could leave off the word "tape" and name them 1, 2, ... 13 or with other suitable labelstr you could use one, two, ... thirteen, or presidents names or your children or famous ducks like Huey, Dewey, and Louis. > > Ok. I will explain this to the client, but I still don't understand this as > different server installs report what tape is next with amcheck after running > one backup, but this one does not. I don't recall this coming up before so I don't have an answer. > > What about a backup not to tape, i.e in the holding disk? I think i did backup > one was done like this. Whould this effect amcheck? > Not certain what you are asking here. -- Jon H. LaBadie [EMAIL PROTECTED] JG Computing 4455 Province Line Road(609) 252-0159 Princeton, NJ 08540-4322 (609) 683-7220 (fax)
Re: amcheck not saying "expecting tapeno. or a new tape"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 06 Nov 2004 17:35, Jon LaBadie wrote: > On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 05:14:57AM +, Gavin Henry wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > I suspect you have only done one backup, thus only previously used one > > > tape. > > > > > > You think there is an order to the tapes, 2 follows 1 etc. Amanda > > > could care less what "new tape" it writes to next. If you put in tape3 > > > next, amanda's order will have 3 following 1 in the future. If you > > > labelstr allows it (tape.*) amanda will happily use tape-gavin next and > > > tape-henry after that. > > > > > > There seems to be no problem (from what I see anyway). > > > > Only one backup has been done, but why would amadmin config tape give me > > the right next tape, but the e-mail/amcheck doesn't? > > The snarky answer is that they use different logic. OK. > > Hmm, now the question becomes how and why they use different logic. > I do not recall your saying what tape amadmin config says is due. > I'm guessing it says "tape2" and again, if I recall correctly, > amcheck says "new tape". Yes, that's right. > > I'll first challenge your determination that amadmin is "right". > You have not "used" the number of tapes in your tapecycle yet. Agreed. > So the correct answer, whether you like it or not, is "a new tape" > labelled, but unused previously. So, amcheck saying "new tape" > is correct, because you have not yet written to your entire > tape cycle. It will expect, and use, a new tape with any label > in the drive the next time an amdump is run. As long as it matches the labelstr. > If you had tape2 > in the drive, it would have reported it was a appropriate tape. Yes. > amadmin, without looking at the source, appears to be looking > at the tapelist file and not checking whether a new tape is > required. Yes, OK. > Thus it is just saying this is the next tape listed > in the tapelist file. But it is incorrect because you could > stick in tape 12 at this time and amcheck and amdump would be > happy. Because it matches labelstr, but should they mind? If you number them. But saying that, does the regex require a number in it? If so, it should ask for the next tape in that number sequence. > After the tapes have been used, and their order set, > then amcheck and amdump will be more particular about which > tape is valid. Ok. I will explain this to the client, but I still don't understand this as different server installs report what tape is next with amcheck after running one backup, but this one does not. What about a backup not to tape, i.e in the holding disk? I think i did backup one was done like this. Whould this effect amcheck? > I think the real question is whether it is worth the effort to > get amadmin to do the "have tapecycle number of tapes been used" > check rather than just report the next tape in the tapelist. Yes. - -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. Managing Director. T +44 (0) 1467 624141 M +44 (0) 7930 323266 F +44 (0) 1224 742001 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] Open Source. Open Solutions(tm). http://www.suretecsystems.com/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBjTe8eWseh9tzvqgRAo3bAJ44bNaeuQ9M1dMNQFYAbcwYiSkyvQCfSO6f AJpsjxNasN4UA4C30mWH98Q= =Xaat -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: amcheck not saying "expecting tapeno. or a new tape"
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 05:14:57AM +, Gavin Henry wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > I suspect you have only done one backup, thus only previously used one > > tape. > > > > You think there is an order to the tapes, 2 follows 1 etc. Amanda could > > care less what "new tape" it writes to next. If you put in tape3 next, > > amanda's order will have 3 following 1 in the future. If you labelstr > > allows it (tape.*) amanda will happily use tape-gavin next and tape-henry > > after that. > > > > There seems to be no problem (from what I see anyway). > > > > Only one backup has been done, but why would amadmin config tape give me the > right next tape, but the e-mail/amcheck doesn't? The snarky answer is that they use different logic. Hmm, now the question becomes how and why they use different logic. I do not recall your saying what tape amadmin config says is due. I'm guessing it says "tape2" and again, if I recall correctly, amcheck says "new tape". I'll first challenge your determination that amadmin is "right". You have not "used" the number of tapes in your tapecycle yet. So the correct answer, whether you like it or not, is "a new tape" labelled, but unused previously. So, amcheck saying "new tape" is correct, because you have not yet written to your entire tape cycle. It will expect, and use, a new tape with any label in the drive the next time an amdump is run. If you had tape2 in the drive, it would have reported it was a appropriate tape. amadmin, without looking at the source, appears to be looking at the tapelist file and not checking whether a new tape is required. Thus it is just saying this is the next tape listed in the tapelist file. But it is incorrect because you could stick in tape 12 at this time and amcheck and amdump would be happy. After the tapes have been used, and their order set, then amcheck and amdump will be more particular about which tape is valid. I think the real question is whether it is worth the effort to get amadmin to do the "have tapecycle number of tapes been used" check rather than just report the next tape in the tapelist. -- Jon H. LaBadie [EMAIL PROTECTED] JG Computing 4455 Province Line Road(609) 252-0159 Princeton, NJ 08540-4322 (609) 683-7220 (fax)
Re: amcheck not saying "expecting tapeno. or a new tape"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > I suspect you have only done one backup, thus only previously used one > tape. > > You think there is an order to the tapes, 2 follows 1 etc. Amanda could > care less what "new tape" it writes to next. If you put in tape3 next, > amanda's order will have 3 following 1 in the future. If you labelstr > allows it (tape.*) amanda will happily use tape-gavin next and tape-henry > after that. > > There seems to be no problem (from what I see anyway). > Only one backup has been done, but why would amadmin config tape give me the right next tape, but the e-mail/amcheck doesn't? - -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. Managing Director. T +44 (0) 1467 624141 M +44 (0) 7930 323266 F +44 (0) 1224 742001 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] Open Source. Open Solutions(tm). http://www.suretecsystems.com/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBjF3SeWseh9tzvqgRAsH2AKCFdmdZ/eI229aAlbjwGnEi0eMtXgCfWKKs c/rPzt1Mzzi5rg1X+hgId4c= =+3eE -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: amcheck not saying "expecting tapeno. or a new tape"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > You think there is an order to the tapes, 2 follows 1 etc. Amanda could > care less what "new tape" it writes to next. If you put in tape3 next, > amanda's order will have 3 following 1 in the future. If you labelstr > allows it (tape.*) amanda will happily use tape-gavin next and tape-henry > after that. > > There seems to be no problem (from what I see anyway). > I agree after re-reading above. It orders the tapes according to what order you put them in the first place, as long as they either match the regex labelstr or are blank. Cheers. - -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. Managing Director. T +44 (0) 1467 624141 M +44 (0) 7930 323266 F +44 (0) 1224 742001 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] Open Source. Open Solutions(tm). http://www.suretecsystems.com/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBi/emeWseh9tzvqgRAiPuAKCSQEWtWteCU6c4X8/a3a9wstDMWACfTtx7 rO8lvf35mvg0WQHE8t3WE9M= =qWGw -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: amcheck not saying "expecting tapeno. or a new tape"
Hi, Jon, on Freitag, 05. November 2004 at 22:09 you wrote to amanda-users: JL> On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 03:24:40PM -0500, Jon LaBadie wrote: >> >> It is really best to post to only ONE of the -users or -hackers >> lists. Decide if it is about the code of amanda, then submit >> to -hackers. For the overwhelming majority of posts, they >> concern usage of amanda and should go to -users. >> JL> And then I go and forget to delete -hackers from the To: list. JL> Dumb Jon, Dumb! To: users Yes. To: hackers Yes. ;-) I just try to educate my mailer to sort mails that go to a list and also directly to me via CC: ... email isn't that trivial at all. -- best regards, Stefan G. Weichinger
Re: amcheck not saying "expecting tapeno. or a new tape"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 05 Nov 2004 20:42, you wrote: > Would people please stop cross-posting between -users and -hackers. > If your message is about using amanda, send it to -users. If it's > about the source, send it to -hackers. Again, sorry. I thought it was relevant to both. > > Don't mean to single out Gavin here. This has happened several times > recently, each then multiplied by all the followups. Yeah, it is hard to follow. > > Thank you. > > -Mitch - -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. Managing Director. T +44 (0) 1467 624141 M +44 (0) 7930 323266 F +44 (0) 1224 742001 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] Open Source. Open Solutions(tm). http://www.suretecsystems.com/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBi+11eWseh9tzvqgRArbeAJ4xhZQ0InDi0hJ/IArAMYhjxw0G5wCeOBsP v8ADLRScIe86U4+r49kLDyQ= =xkQh -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: amcheck not saying "expecting tapeno. or a new tape"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 05 Nov 2004 20:24, Jon LaBadie wrote: > It is really best to post to only ONE of the -users or -hackers > lists. Decide if it is about the code of amanda, then submit > to -hackers. For the overwhelming majority of posts, they > concern usage of amanda and should go to -users. OK, sorry, sorry. I am bad. > > On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 08:05:48PM +, Gavin Henry wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Dear all, > > > > After compiling by hand and patching amcheck.c to include our signature, > > all tests ran fine, backup work to tape etc, but a strange problem with > > amcheck: > > > > > > Appserv Tape Server Host Check > > - - > > Holding disk /var/cache/amanda: 7515340 KB disk space available, that's > > plenty ERROR: /dev/nst0: rewinding tape: No medium found > > (expecting a new tape) > > ... > > > You can see that a new DLE was added, hence the curinfo and index. There > > was no tape in the drive, but it should off asked for tape2, as I dumped > > a backup to tape 1. > > > > If I run amadmin config tape, it gives the right tape, which is also > > indicate in tapelist, tapelist.yesterday etc. > > I suspect you have only done one backup, thus only previously used one > tape. Is this because it's not been overwritten before? > You think there is an order to the tapes, 2 follows 1 etc. Amanda could > care less what "new tape" it writes to next. If you put in tape3 next, > amanda's order will have 3 following 1 in the future. If you labelstr > allows it (tape.*) amanda will happily use tape-gavin next and tape-henry > after that. > > There seems to be no problem (from what I see anyway). > > > Could I have messed something up in amcheck.c ??? > > That is a separate question with an unknown answer. > But it is any mess-up is probably unrelated to this situation. - -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. Managing Director. T +44 (0) 1467 624141 M +44 (0) 7930 323266 F +44 (0) 1224 742001 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] Open Source. Open Solutions(tm). http://www.suretecsystems.com/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBi+1GeWseh9tzvqgRAuCQAJ92SPDjqIy3G1qhPU8LERPpLJ/0qwCeOBoW xTZKEux4q5FJ7YTiqoPxKAQ= =Osat -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: amcheck not saying "expecting tapeno. or a new tape"
On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 03:24:40PM -0500, Jon LaBadie wrote: > > It is really best to post to only ONE of the -users or -hackers > lists. Decide if it is about the code of amanda, then submit > to -hackers. For the overwhelming majority of posts, they > concern usage of amanda and should go to -users. > And then I go and forget to delete -hackers from the To: list. Dumb Jon, Dumb! -- Jon H. LaBadie [EMAIL PROTECTED] JG Computing 4455 Province Line Road(609) 252-0159 Princeton, NJ 08540-4322 (609) 683-7220 (fax)
Re: amcheck not saying "expecting tapeno. or a new tape"
Would people please stop cross-posting between -users and -hackers. If your message is about using amanda, send it to -users. If it's about the source, send it to -hackers. Don't mean to single out Gavin here. This has happened several times recently, each then multiplied by all the followups. Thank you. -Mitch
Re: amcheck not saying "expecting tapeno. or a new tape"
It is really best to post to only ONE of the -users or -hackers lists. Decide if it is about the code of amanda, then submit to -hackers. For the overwhelming majority of posts, they concern usage of amanda and should go to -users. On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 08:05:48PM +, Gavin Henry wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear all, > > After compiling by hand and patching amcheck.c to include our signature, all > tests ran fine, backup work to tape etc, but a strange problem with amcheck: > > > Appserv Tape Server Host Check > - - > Holding disk /var/cache/amanda: 7515340 KB disk space available, that's plenty > ERROR: /dev/nst0: rewinding tape: No medium found > (expecting a new tape) ... > > You can see that a new DLE was added, hence the curinfo and index. There was > no tape in the drive, but it should off asked for tape2, as I dumped a backup > to tape 1. > > If I run amadmin config tape, it gives the right tape, which is also indicate > in tapelist, tapelist.yesterday etc. I suspect you have only done one backup, thus only previously used one tape. You think there is an order to the tapes, 2 follows 1 etc. Amanda could care less what "new tape" it writes to next. If you put in tape3 next, amanda's order will have 3 following 1 in the future. If you labelstr allows it (tape.*) amanda will happily use tape-gavin next and tape-henry after that. There seems to be no problem (from what I see anyway). > > Could I have messed something up in amcheck.c ??? > That is a separate question with an unknown answer. But it is any mess-up is probably unrelated to this situation. -- Jon H. LaBadie [EMAIL PROTECTED] JG Computing 4455 Province Line Road(609) 252-0159 Princeton, NJ 08540-4322 (609) 683-7220 (fax)
amcheck not saying "expecting tapeno. or a new tape"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear all,
After compiling by hand and patching amcheck.c to include our signature, all
tests ran fine, backup work to tape etc, but a strange problem with amcheck:
Appserv Tape Server Host Check
- -
Holding disk /var/cache/amanda: 7515340 KB disk space available, that's plenty
ERROR: /dev/nst0: rewinding tape: No medium found
   Â(expecting a new tape)
NOTE: skipping tape-writable test
NOTE: info
dir /opt/suretec/var/amanda/learnit-appserv-cfg/curinfo/appserv/_opt_suretec:
does not exist
NOTE: index
dir /opt/suretec/var/amanda/learnit-appserv-cfg/index/appserv/_opt_suretec:
does not exist
Server check took 30.105 seconds
Appserv Backup Client Hosts Check
- -
Client check: 1 host checked in 0.019 seconds, 0 problems found
- -
Backup solution by Suretec Systems Ltd.
For support, please email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Open Source. Open Solutions.
http://www.suretecsystems.com
- --
You can see that a new DLE was added, hence the curinfo and index. There was
no tape in the drive, but it should off asked for tape2, as I dumped a backup
to tape 1.
If I run amadmin config tape, it gives the right tape, which is also indicate
in tapelist, tapelist.yesterday etc.
Could I have messed something up in amcheck.c ???
Patch:
- --- pristine/amanda-2.4.4p3/server-src/reporter.c Wed Nov 26 16:10:23 2003
+++ amanda-2.4.4p3/server-src/reporter.c Sun Oct 3 01:47:16 2004
@@ -606,9 +606,11 @@
fprintf(mailf,"\n\014\nDUMP SUMMARY:\n");
output_summary();
}
- -fprintf(mailf,"\n(brought to you by Amanda version %s)\n",
- - version());
- -
+fprintf(mailf,"\n--\n",
+ "Brought to you by Suretec Systems Ltd.\n\n",
+ "For support issues, please visit:\n",
+ "http://support.suretecsystems.com\n\n";,
+ "Open Source. Open Solutions.\n");
if (postscript) {
do_postscript_output();
}
- --- pristine/amanda-2.4.4p3/server-src/amcheck.c Tue Mar 16 19:03:39 2004
+++ amanda-2.4.4p3/server-src/amcheck.c Sun Oct 3 01:46:58 2004
@@ -345,8 +345,12 @@
}
version_string = vstralloc("\n",
- - "(brought to you by Amanda ", version(), ")\n",
- - NULL);
+ "--\n",
+ "Brought to you by Suretec Systems Ltd.\n\n",
+ "For support issues, please visit:\n",
+"http://support.suretecsystems.com\n\n";,
+"Open Source. Open Solutions.\n",
+NULL);
for(l = 0, n = strlen(version_string); l < n; l += s) {
if((s = write(mainfd, version_string + l, n - l)) < 0) {
error("write main file: %s", strerror(errno));
- --
I can still see "expecting" in amcheck.c
Just had a thought. Maybe tapelist is owned by root, and amcheck can't read
it?
Thanks.
- --
Kind Regards,
Gavin Henry.
Managing Director.
T +44 (0) 1467 624141
M +44 (0) 7930 323266
F +44 (0) 1224 742001
E [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Open Source. Open Solutions(tm).
http://www.suretecsystems.com/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBi90heWseh9tzvqgRAlCzAJ9IldFYjKWfQVRhYyL157qiITkxaQCglwFT
6Jvjo2yv0R50yKD0G8mf9Mg=
=Aics
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
