There is an indirect method you can use -- ;PROGRESS=1

This will cause a message to appear once a minute showing how the percent of
files stored so far.  I'll admit I haven't tried this recently enough to
remeber for certain, but I believe that when the tape completes and it wants
the next one, the messages will stop appearing [no progress is being made]

(on the other hand, it might continue to report "the store operation is 95%
complete" forever...)

It seems to me there might be a hardware option you can set to cause the
tape to physically eject once the current operation completes -- the
rube-goldberg solution at this point would be to place a push-switch over
the tape drive so the ejected tape closes a circuit to sound a buzzer to
wake up the operator to change the tape...

[otoh, speak kindly to Denys and I'm sure he'll sell^h^h^h^htell you about
autoloader...]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nizzardini, Al [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 2:26 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Turbostore question
>
>
> I do not think I am making my issue clear. The problem is
> that when there is
> a request to mount an additional tape it only appears on the
> console. If you
> are not constantly monitoring the console or you have many
> console messages
> displayed you will miss this request. At this point the
> backup will just
> stay in the wait state until you mount a new scratch tape. I
> am trying to
> make this process as automated as possible (no excuses as to
> why the backup
> is still running). I guess one answer is to keep doing a
> showproc on the job
> to see if it is getting any cpu time or have glance/sos
> running to see if
> the job is getting cpu time. Anything else I am missing?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Al Nizzardini
> Technical Consultant
> Computer Design & Integration LLC
> 696 Route 46 West
> Teterboro, NJ 07608
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> T:  201-931-1420 x252
> F:  201-931-0101
> P: 973-205-3922
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Werth [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 5:06 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] Turbostore question
>
>
> John Burke <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>
> > I agree that two (or more, we use five) tape drives are
> better than one;
> > however, rather than a sequential backup (still takes as long) or a
> parallel
> > backup (too complex when a restore is required) why not two
> separate,
> > independent, backup jobs?
> >
> > We actually do five simultaneous backups to five tape
> drives. The obvious
> > advantage this has over a sequential backup is the time factor. The
> obvious
> > advantage over a parallel backup is ease of restore.
> Perhaps less obvious,
> > since the backups are independent, if one fails for any
> reason, we still
> > have a good backup of 4/5's of our system
> >
> > The downside to this scheme is you have to manually
> determine how to split
> > your system and periodically monitor how much is backed up by each
> process;
> > however, it has served us well for many years and once set
> up requires
> only
> > minimal attention.
>
> Exactly. My assumption is that this is a single tape backup that was
> spilling over onto a second tape. The *easiest* thing to do
> (besides just
> manually changing tapes) without introducing other
> complexities would be a
> sequential backup. Anything else would require deeper analysis and an
> overhaul of the backup procedure.
>
> Doug.
>
> Doug Werth                             Beechglen Development Inc.
> [log in to unmask]                               Cincinnati, Ohio
>