On 2006-08-09 14:59, McGraw, Robert P. wrote:
Not from what I see. I always reverse sort my tape list so that the
oldest
and lowest number is at the bottom.
zorn->[537] > cat tapelist
0 D00010 reuse
0 D9 reuse
0 D8 reuse
0 D7 reuse
0 D6 reuse
0 D5 reuse
0 D4 reuse
0 D00
> -Original Message-
> From: Jon LaBadie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 4:32 PM
> To: McGraw, Robert P.
> Subject: Re: Next Tapes are Offsite
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 03:58:21PM -0400, McGraw, Robert P. wrote:
> >
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Jon LaBadie
> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 2:32 PM
> To: amanda-users@amanda.org
> Subject: Re: Next Tapes are Offsite
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 10:27:00AM -0500,
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 02:48:25PM -0400, Ian Turner wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 August 2006 14:32, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> > From this discussion, your and my observations also, it appears the
> > order of tapes listed in the tapelist file is immaterial.
>
> I'm not sure about this, but I think the defin
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 14:32, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> From this discussion, your and my observations also, it appears the
> order of tapes listed in the tapelist file is immaterial.
I'm not sure about this, but I think the definition of "least recently used"
is based on the order in the tapelist
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 14:29, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> >> -- The most recently used "tapecycle" number of tapes is in A.
> >> -- Any remaining tapes are in I. The single least recently used
> >>of these is also in P.
>
> When I first read it, I was in a mindset of # tapes in rotation
> matches t
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 10:27:00AM -0500, Frank Smith wrote:
> Jon LaBadie wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 02:37:17PM -0400, Ian Turner wrote:
> >> Marilyn,
> >>
> >> Amanda's tape selection policy is as follows.
> >>
> >> Consider the set of tapes T. We can partition the set into two disjoint
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 12:26:59PM -0400, Ian Turner wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 August 2006 12:11, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> > Just to be clear, suppose I have a large tape library with functioning
> > barcode reader and associated changer database.
>
> I neglected to mention that if there is a barcode rea
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 12:11, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> Just to be clear, suppose I have a large tape library with functioning
> barcode reader and associated changer database.
I neglected to mention that if there is a barcode reader, Amanda will start by
loading the least recently used reusable ta
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 11:48:18AM -0400, Ian Turner wrote:
>
> The rule is slightly different if the changer is a gravity stacker; in that
> case, the first tape in I (without regard to P-membership) will be accepted.
And the last gravity stacker was seen in which decade? ;))
--
Jon H. LaBad
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 05:19:38PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> > One thing still up in the air (to me anyway) is final tape selection
> > from within the tapelist and physical tape changer. Your description
> > gets to which tapes are "eligible" to b
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 11:01, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> One thing still up in the air (to me anyway) is final tape selection
> from within the tapelist and physical tape changer. Your description
> gets to which tapes are "eligible" to be selected, but not which tape
> (or runtape number of tapes) a
Jon LaBadie wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 02:37:17PM -0400, Ian Turner wrote:
>> Marilyn,
>>
>> Amanda's tape selection policy is as follows.
>>
>> Consider the set of tapes T. We can partition the set into two disjoint
>> subsets A (the set of active tapes) and I (the set of inactive tapes).
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> One thing still up in the air (to me anyway) is final tape selection
> from within the tapelist and physical tape changer. Your description
> gets to which tapes are "eligible" to be selected, but not which tape
> (or runtape number of tapes) among that set
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 02:37:17PM -0400, Ian Turner wrote:
> Marilyn,
>
> Amanda's tape selection policy is as follows.
>
> Consider the set of tapes T. We can partition the set into two disjoint
> subsets A (the set of active tapes) and I (the set of inactive tapes).
> Assuming I is nonempty,
Marilyn,
Amanda's tape selection policy is as follows.
Consider the set of tapes T. We can partition the set into two disjoint
subsets A (the set of active tapes) and I (the set of inactive tapes).
Assuming I is nonempty, there exists a subset P of I, called the set of
preferred tapes. Note th
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 12:29:32PM -0500, Frank Smith wrote:
> HUGHES Marilyn F wrote:
> > We have a situation where the next Amanda tapes that it is asking for
> > are currently offsite. It costs $75 for them to be retrieved so we
> > don't want to do that.
> >
> >
> > Besides we have avail
HUGHES Marilyn F wrote:
> We have a situation where the next Amanda tapes that it is asking for
> are currently offsite. It costs $75 for them to be retrieved so we
> don't want to do that.
>
>
> Besides we have available tapes here onsite. Is there a way (a command
> or other way?) to forc
18 matches
Mail list logo
