Re: debian 11, vtapes not found correctly anymore

Jose M Calhariz <[email protected]> Tue, 12 Apr 2022 16:57:37 +0100
Newsgroups	gmane.comp.archivers.amanda.user
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
Hi,

To tell that I have 1 instalation of amanda in Debian 11 with vtapes
working flawless.  Can we share the setup?

Kind regards
Jose M Calhariz


On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 10:22:38AM +0200, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
--

Conheci no Brasil a miséria rica. Hoje, conheço a riqueza miserável

--Adolpho Bloch
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)