>> I had a similar situation awhile back. I think my st0 corresponded to >> nst1, st1 didn't have nst equiv. Something like that. >> >> I don't know what O/S you're running there? It's obviously different to >> mine. >> > > its centos5: > [r...@molbio ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release > CentOS release 5 (Final) > > [r...@molbio ~]# uname -a > Linux molbio.ornl.gov 2.6.18-8.1.14.el5 #1 SMP Thu Sep 27 19:05:32 EDT > 2007 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > >> You could try looking here: >> >> ls -l /dev/st[0-9] /dev/nst[0-9] >> >> Look at the major and minor numbers. >> > > [r...@molbio ~]# ls -l /dev/st* > crw-rw---- 1 root disk 9, 0 Jan 9 07:28 /dev/st0 > crw-rw---- 1 root disk 9, 96 Jan 9 07:28 /dev/st0a > crw-rw---- 1 root disk 9, 32 Jan 9 07:28 /dev/st0l > crw-rw---- 1 root disk 9, 64 Jan 9 07:28 /dev/st0m > crw-rw---- 1 root disk 9, 1 Jan 9 07:28 /dev/st1 > crw-rw---- 1 root disk 9, 97 Jan 9 07:28 /dev/st1a > crw-rw---- 1 root disk 9, 33 Jan 9 07:28 /dev/st1l > crw-rw---- 1 root disk 9, 65 Jan 9 07:28 /dev/st1m > [r...@molbio ~]# ls -l /dev/nst* > crw-rw---- 1 root disk 9, 128 Jan 9 07:28 /dev/nst0 > crw-rw---- 1 root disk 9, 224 Jan 9 07:28 /dev/nst0a > crw-rw---- 1 root disk 9, 160 Jan 9 07:28 /dev/nst0l > crw-rw---- 1 root disk 9, 192 Jan 9 07:28 /dev/nst0m > crw-rw---- 1 root disk 9, 129 Jan 9 07:28 /dev/nst1 > crw-rw---- 1 root disk 9, 225 Jan 9 07:28 /dev/nst1a > crw-rw---- 1 root disk 9, 161 Jan 9 07:28 /dev/nst1l > crw-rw---- 1 root disk 9, 193 Jan 9 07:28 /dev/nst1m > > st0 and nst0 have lower minor numbers. > > >> On linux, st? and nst? are created in order of discovery; while mtx is >> talking about the library's internal concept of drive numbering. Why >> they >> are out of sync: various possibilities. It could be that your SCSI buses >> are wired up in an unusual way, although your lsscsi above looks OK. Or >> something in the O/S config...? >> > > this same configuration worked as expected before i swapped out the > library (its > been making backups for a year, then replaced library with factory > replacement). >
If the library was replaced with another one (factory-replacement avove), are there any chances that the scsi addresses (14 vs 15) in drive configuration were swapped? It's also possible you (or someone else at your site) had done that years ago to fix this kind of inconsistency in the old unit, so there doesn't have to be anything wrong with the new, replaced unit. I don't know this spesific hardware, so don't know if the addresses are set with jumpers/switches, or thru some more modern configuration system. But for me it just looks like this could be fixed with swapping the address settings of the two drives. -- TiN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It is the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Xq1LFB _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
