Re: Unattended ontape

"Doug Lawry" <lawry@nildram.co.uk> wrote in message news:c60o2f$ch2$1@nntp0.reith.bbc.co.uk... > Your comments are of course quite correct: this does not support multiple > tapes, > but is fine for smaller databases. Any error is recorded but the process > aborts. If it prompts you for a new tape and stdin is not a terminal it will still in a tight loop doing repeated read calls clocking up 100% cpu and writing thousands of "put in another tape" message to stdout. Once saw this fill up the root partition on a sun box..>300Mb file and it was still looping. Not sure but from a cursory glance this script will dump stdout to a) the screen b) if run from cron then /tmp or the root partition filling it! > Sounds like others are using "expect" for a more complete solution. > > > "Doug Lawry" <lawry@nildram.co.uk> wrote in message > news:c5on8e$iml$1@nntp0.reith.bbc.co.uk... > > > Some recent threads implied that you cannot use ontape unattended. > > I disagree! See Shell script below. > > > > Regards, > > Doug Lawry > > www.douglawry.webhop.org > > > > > > # Run an automated Informix "ontape" backup > > > > # Doug Lawry, 20/11/95 > > > > case $1 in > > '') set -- 0 ;; > > [012]) ;; > > *) echo "Usage: $0 level (0-2)" ; exit 1 ;; > > esac > > > > AWK='NF > 0 && $0 != last {print ; last = $0}' > > > > exec echo | ontape -s -L $1 | tr '\\b' '\\n' | awk "$AWK" > >

Time to take a look at onbar? "David Williams" <djw@smooth1.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<c618da$fgi$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>... > "Doug Lawry" <lawry@nildram.co.uk> wrote in message > news:c60o2f$ch2$1@nntp0.reith.bbc.co.uk... > > Your comments are of course quite correct: this does not support multiple > > tapes, > > but is fine for smaller databases. Any error is recorded but the process > > aborts. > > If it prompts you for a new tape and stdin is not a terminal it will > still in a tight loop > doing repeated read calls clocking up 100% cpu and writing thousands of > "put in another tape" message to stdout.... ...