Not an amanda tape: Difference between revisions
Paul.bijnens (talk | contribs) m (Why does `amcheck' claim that the tape is `not an amanda tape'? moved to Amcheck: not an amanda tape) |
Paul.bijnens (talk | contribs) m (up link) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
If you have labeled any tapes using the rewinding device configuration, you'll have to label them again. | If you have labeled any tapes using the rewinding device configuration, you'll have to label them again. | ||
---- | |||
I'm not convinced that using a rewinding tapedevice makes the tape label invalid. Anyone proof of this solution? On the other hand, a wrong blocksize (32 bytes instead of 32k bytes) can result in an invalid label. -- Paul.bijnens 11:36, 5 December 2005 (PST) | |||
---- | |||
See more [[amcheck issues]] | |||
Revision as of 23:12, 12 December 2005
--- This text was originally contributed to the AMANDA-FAQ-O-Matic by [email protected]. ---
Because Amanda requires you to label tapes before it uses them. Run `amlabel' in order to label a tape.
If, even after labeling a tape, `amcheck' still complains about it, make sure the regular expression specified in amanda.conf matches the label you have specified, and check whether you have configured non-rewinding tape devices for Amanda to use. For example, use /dev/nrst0 instead of /dev/rst0, /dev/rmt/0bn instead of /dev/rmt/0b, or some other system-dependent device name that contains an `n', instead of one that does not. The `n' stands for non-rewinding.
If you have labeled any tapes using the rewinding device configuration, you'll have to label them again.
I'm not convinced that using a rewinding tapedevice makes the tape label invalid. Anyone proof of this solution? On the other hand, a wrong blocksize (32 bytes instead of 32k bytes) can result in an invalid label. -- Paul.bijnens 11:36, 5 December 2005 (PST)
See more amcheck issues