Re: Two more amanda questions

2003-02-27 Thread John Oliver
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:39:49AM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 04:28:02PM -0800, John Oliver wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 05:26:59PM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote: > > > Just a guess, but I'd say it's because "0" is not a valid date, so > > > those lines are being ign

Re: Two more amanda questions

2003-02-27 Thread Dave Sherohman
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 04:28:02PM -0800, John Oliver wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 05:26:59PM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote: > > Just a guess, but I'd say it's because "0" is not a valid date, so > > those lines are being ignored completely. > > Those lines are what results when you amlabel a ta

Re: Two more amanda questions

2003-02-27 Thread Christoph Scheeder
Hi, i think all of you are right, but... lets state a few things amanda does: 1.) you amlabel your tapes for use, and amanda put's them with a date of 0 in its tapelist. 2.) the date of 0 in tapelist means: this tape has never been written a backup to, it is a so called "new tape". 3.) amanda will

Re: Two more amanda questions

2003-02-26 Thread John Oliver
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 05:26:59PM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 01:38:46PM -0800, John Oliver wrote: > > I thought amanda would just read from the bottom of the list. > > Nope, amanda goes by date first. List position is only significant > when 2 or more tapes have the s

Re: Two more amanda questions

2003-02-26 Thread Dave Sherohman
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 01:38:46PM -0800, John Oliver wrote: > I thought amanda would just read from the bottom of the list. Nope, amanda goes by date first. List position is only significant when 2 or more tapes have the same last-used date. > When it > was done with tape 009, 010 was at the bo

Re: Two more amanda questions

2003-02-26 Thread Gene Heskett
On Wed February 26 2003 14:33, John Oliver wrote: >1) This morning, my amanda report said: > >These dumps were to tape Indyme010. >The next tape Amanda expects to use is: a new tape. > >Instead of "The next tape Amanda expects to use is: Indyme011." > >Here's the tapelist: > >20030226 Indyme010 reu

RE: Two more amanda questions

2003-02-26 Thread Rebecca Pakish Crum
>1) This morning, my amanda report said: > >These dumps were to tape Indyme010. >The next tape Amanda expects to use is: a new tape. > >Instead of "The next tape Amanda expects to use is: Indyme011." > >Here's the tapelist: > >20030226 Indyme010 reuse >20030225 Indyme009 reuse >20030221 Indyme008 r

Re: Two more amanda questions

2003-02-26 Thread John Oliver
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 03:54:16PM -0500, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: > > 20030226 Indyme010 reuse > > 20030225 Indyme009 reuse > > 20030221 Indyme008 reuse > > 20030220 Indyme007 reuse > > 20030219 Indyme006 reuse > > 20030218 Indyme005 reuse > > 20030215 Indyme004 reuse > > 20030214 Indyme003 reus

Re: Two more amanda questions

2003-02-26 Thread Joshua Baker-LePain
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 at 11:33am, John Oliver wrote > These dumps were to tape Indyme010. > The next tape Amanda expects to use is: a new tape. > > Instead of "The next tape Amanda expects to use is: Indyme011." > > Here's the tapelist: > > 20030226 Indyme010 reuse > 20030225 Indyme009 reuse > 20