On Thursday 23 October 2003 06:29, Lucio wrote:
>> > Or looking at a file with the same name but not the one
>> > as configured in amanda.conf?)
>
>I can't tell how stupid I feel just now. The one above was the
> reason. Thanks everybody.
>
>Lucio.
You probably have lot of company in that, I think
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 4:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [UPDATE] How to control which tape is next?
> > Check to see if some problem has truncated your tapelist file. If a
> > problem (e.g., no space left on a device) prevents the tapelist from
> > being create
On Thursday 23 October 2003 05:38, Lucio wrote:
>> > Check to see if some problem has truncated your tapelist file.
>> > If a problem (e.g., no space left on a device) prevents the
>> > tapelist from being created or some other problem truncated the
>> > file, then you could expect to see a proble
> > Or looking at a file with the same name but not the one
> > as configured in amanda.conf?)
I can't tell how stupid I feel just now. The one above was the reason.
Thanks everybody.
Lucio.
> > Check to see if some problem has truncated your tapelist file. If a
> > problem (e.g., no space left on a device) prevents the tapelist from
> > being created or some other problem truncated the file, then you
> > could expect to see a problem like this. Check to see if there have
> > been an
On Wednesday 22 October 2003 21:19, Matt Hyclak wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 08:54:52PM -0400, Gene Heskett enlightened
us:
>> >> Q: Does this automaticly set the ownerships and perms in the
>> >> built rpm? Amanda should be built by a non-priviledged user,
>> >> then installed by root. Other
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 08:54:52PM -0400, Gene Heskett enlightened us:
> >> Q: Does this automaticly set the ownerships and perms in the built
> >> rpm? Amanda should be built by a non-priviledged user, then
> >> installed by root. Otherwise the perms get fubared. I ask
> >> because I've never d
On Wednesday 22 October 2003 14:45, Matt Hyclak wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 11:07:17AM -0400, Gene Heskett enlightened
us:
>> >FWIW, I have made packages of 2.4.4-p1 that are pretty much the
>> > RH packages with a couple tweaks to the .spec file. Namely,
>> > there are 2 variables at the top
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 11:07:17AM -0400, Gene Heskett enlightened us:
> >FWIW, I have made packages of 2.4.4-p1 that are pretty much the RH
> > packages with a couple tweaks to the .spec file. Namely, there are
> > 2 variables at the top of the .spec to define your tapeserver and
> > your config n
Hi Paul,
I commited your patch with a small change. In write_tapelist, it return 1
instead of calling error(), all caller handle the return code correctly.
Jean-Louis
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 04:04:19PM +0200, Paul Bijnens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Check to see if some problem has t
On Wednesday 22 October 2003 08:56, Matt Hyclak wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 07:04:29AM -0400, Gene Heskett enlightened
us:
>> We did at one time have someone subscribed here that was doing the
>> redhat rpm's, and he would speak up anytime we started to get down
>> on the rpm vs the tarballs,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Check to see if some problem has truncated your tapelist file. If a
problem (e.g., no space left on a device) prevents the tapelist from
being created or some other problem truncated the file, then you
could expect to see a problem like this. Check to see if there hav
]
Subject: Re: [UPDATE] How to control which tape is next?
> Lucio:
>
> Until all the tapes have been used at least once, Amanda had no idea of
> which tape to use next.
All the tapes have already been used at least twice, and during the first
two
cycles (more or less) Amanda had bee
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 08:56:10AM -0400, Matt Hyclak enlightened us:
> If anyone is interested in this, you can get it from (sorry it wraps):
> http://www.math.ohiou.edu/mirror/casit/contrib/9/SRPMS/amanda-2.4.4p1-2mrh3.src.rpm
>
Oops, that should be
http://www.math.ohiou.edu/mirror/casit/contr
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 07:04:29AM -0400, Gene Heskett enlightened us:
> We did at one time have someone subscribed here that was doing the
> redhat rpm's, and he would speak up anytime we started to get down on
> the rpm vs the tarballs, but he has not made any posts here in many
> months now t
On Wednesday 22 October 2003 06:07, Lucio wrote:
>> Lucio:
>>
>> Until all the tapes have been used at least once, Amanda had no
>> idea of which tape to use next.
>
>All the tapes have already been used at least twice, and during the
> first two cycles (more or less) Amanda had been telling me wha
On Wednesday 22 October 2003 05:23, Lucio wrote:
>> >Are you telling me that this is a known problem of 2.4.3?
>> >
>> >It's a production system, I'm afraid it's quite a risk to update
>> > a rpm by compiling from source (especially for an amanda newbie
>> > like me). I'm going to do this only if I
Lucio wrote:
Am I the only one here who uses the Amanda version 2.4.3 bundled with
RH9? If not, and if this is a known problem of that version, there
must be someone else here experiencing the same difficulties... and
maybe he/she has already found the solution. I believed RedHat was
widespread en
> Lucio:
>
> Until all the tapes have been used at least once, Amanda had no idea of
> which tape to use next.
All the tapes have already been used at least twice, and during the first two
cycles (more or less) Amanda had been telling me what tape number to put in
the unit. Then a cloudy day i
> >Are you telling me that this is a known problem of 2.4.3?
> >
> >It's a production system, I'm afraid it's quite a risk to update a
> > rpm by compiling from source (especially for an amanda newbie like
> > me). I'm going to do this only if I have no other chance.
>
> I don't blame you for being
t the tape names until you've been through
them at least once.
Don
-Original Message-
From: Lucio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 10:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [UPDATE] How to control which tape is next?
When I wrote the last message I forgot to s
> >BTW, it's Amanda 2.4.3 on RH9
> >
> >What am I missing?
>
> Possibly the upgrade to 2.4.4-p1?
Are you telling me that this is a known problem of 2.4.3?
It's a production system, I'm afraid it's quite a risk to update a rpm by
compiling from source (especially for an amanda newbie like me).
On Tuesday 21 October 2003 11:40, Lucio wrote:
>When I wrote the last message I forgot to specify the following:
>
>This morning Amanda reported the last backup on Tape2, and then
> asked for "a new tape" only, instead of "Tape3 or a new tape".
>I put Tape3 in the unit anyway and amcheck stopped co
When I wrote the last message I forgot to specify the following:
This morning Amanda reported the last backup on Tape2, and then asked for "a
new tape" only, instead of "Tape3 or a new tape".
I put Tape3 in the unit anyway and amcheck stopped complaining for the wrong
tape. Amanda is going to us
> These dumps were to tape Daily006.
> The next tape Amanda expects to use is: a new tape.
I've just the same problem, but my amanda.conf looks like this
cut here
dumpcycle 0 # the number of days in the normal dump cycle
runspercycle 5 days # the number of amdump runs in d
Hi.
Thanks for all your replies. I'm not through my tapecycle yet so that is
probably the reason.
Regards
Mads
On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 21:34, Frank Smith wrote:
> --On Monday, October 20, 2003 20:39:45 +0200 Mads Pultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > I have the following settings.
>
--On Monday, October 20, 2003 20:39:45 +0200 Mads Pultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I have the following settings.
>
> dumpcycle 3 days
> runspercycle 3 days
> tapecycle 8 tapes
>
> runtapes 1
> tapedev "/dev/nst0"
>
>> From the backup report that is sent to me every day everything s
Mads Pultz wrote:
I have the following settings.
dumpcycle 3 days
runspercycle 3 days
tapecycle 8 tapes
runtapes 1
tapedev "/dev/nst0"
From the backup report that is sent to me every day everything seems to
be fine. However, there is one thing that bugs me. The report begins
like this
These dum
Hi.
I have the following settings.
dumpcycle 3 days
runspercycle 3 days
tapecycle 8 tapes
runtapes 1
tapedev "/dev/nst0"
>From the backup report that is sent to me every day everything seems to
be fine. However, there is one thing that bugs me. The report begins
like this
These dumps were to
29 matches
Mail list logo
