Re: debian 11, vtapes not found correctly anymore

Am 05.04.22 um 14:39 schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger:
> 
> At two amanda-installations on Debian11 I see this lately:
> 
> both setups use an aggregate setup of multiple external usb disks with 
> vtapes on them.
> 
> That worked well for years.
> 
> Now I get errors because amanda does not find valid tapes on one or more 
> external disks.
> 
> "amtape config inventory" shows the vtapes, but "amcheck -t config" 
> tells me "No acceptable volumes found".
> 
> If I relabel a tape "amlabel -f vtape_usb vtape_usb-002-004  slot 1:4" 
> it gets detected again:
> 
> $ amcheck -t vtape_usb
> Amanda Tape Server Host Check
> -----------------------------
> mount: /mnt/externaldisk01: can't find 
> UUID=98cb03d6-e95e-462d-a823-6011b37c9f42.
> slot 1:4: volume 'vtape_usb-002-004'
> Will write to volume 'vtape_usb-002-004' in slot 1:4.
> NOTE: skipping tape-writable test
> Server check took 6.673 seconds
> (brought to you by Amanda 3.5.1)
> 
> 
> (externaldisk01 is absent: OK, externaldisk02 is connected)
> 
> I assume I should grep through some debug logs. What and where to look for?

Still seeing these issues. I have to relabel every day, that is not the 
way a backup setup should work like.

See this tapelist, I wonder about that META column.

/etc/amanda/vtape_usb/tapelist
20220412084458 vtape_usb-002-006 reuse META:vtape_usb-003 BLOCKSIZE:32 
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220411123301 vtape_usb-002-017 reuse META:vtape_usb-003 BLOCKSIZE:32 
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220408224501 vtape_usb-002-016 reuse META:vtape_usb-003 BLOCKSIZE:32 
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220408224501 vtape_usb-002-015 reuse META:vtape_usb-003 BLOCKSIZE:32 
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220407224501 vtape_usb-002-014 reuse META:vtape_usb-003 BLOCKSIZE:32 
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220407073600 vtape_usb-002-013 reuse META:vtape_usb-003 BLOCKSIZE:32 
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220405224501 vtape_usb-002-005 reuse META:vtape_usb-002 BLOCKSIZE:32 
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220405224501 vtape_usb-002-004 reuse META:vtape_usb-002 BLOCKSIZE:32 
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220405132318 vtape_usb-002-003 reuse META:vtape_usb-002 BLOCKSIZE:32 
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220405120227 vtape_usb-002-001 reuse META:vtape_usb-002 BLOCKSIZE:32 
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220321224501 vtape_usb-002-012 reuse META:vtape_usb-002 BLOCKSIZE:32 
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220320224501 vtape_usb-002-011 reuse META:vtape_usb-002 BLOCKSIZE:32 
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220320224501 vtape_usb-002-010 reuse META:vtape_usb-002 BLOCKSIZE:32 
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220319224501 vtape_usb-002-009 reuse META:vtape_usb-002 BLOCKSIZE:32 
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220319224501 vtape_usb-002-008 reuse META:vtape_usb-002 BLOCKSIZE:32 
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb
20220318224501 vtape_usb-002-007 reuse META:vtape_usb-002 BLOCKSIZE:32 
POOL:vtape_usb STORAGE:vtape_usb CONFIG:vtape_usb


what about that meta label?

Is it a problem that it is duplicate?