Pete, Thanks for the reply. However, I'm still trying to wrap my head around why this should not work. When you say a non-local filesystem, are you by any chance meaning anything mounted via a connection to a share on another Win32 box? Or maybe via NFS?
I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just having a hard time seeing how the OS sees the distinction between a disk connected via a SCSI HBA vs. a disk on a SAN connected via an FC HBA. An I/O request to either should be exactly the same as far as the O/S and anything else at the application layer is concerned. I'm wondering if maybe we just have a misunderstanding over semantics? Again, appreciate the feedback. I'm just trying to clarify the situation as we have a box or two that would probably benefit from journaling, but the disk on those servers are SAN-Attached. Sincerely, Don Whitlow Quad/Graphics, Inc. Manager - Enterprise Computing [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Pete Tanenhaus [mailto:tanenhau@;US.IBM.COM] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 1:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Journaling Unfortunately this is beyond our (development's) control. The Microsoft Win32 api used to monitor file system changes does not support non-local file systems. It might be possible to write some sort of file system extension (filter) to implement this type of support but it would be a major development undertaking and would involve a considerable investment of time and resource which I'm not sure management would be willing to consider. Pete Tanenhaus Tivoli Storage Solutions Software Development email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tieline: 320.8778, external: 607.754.4213 "Those who refuse to challenge authority are condemned to conform to it" ---------------------- Forwarded by Pete Tanenhaus/San Jose/IBM on 11/07/2002 02:52 PM --------------------------- "Whitlow, Don" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@VM.MARIST.EDU> on 11/07/2002 02:24:36 PM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: Re: Journaling I may be adding more questions than I am answering, but why should it matter if a disk is SAN-based vs. DAS (local)? I would assume journaling would work at the drive letter (logical) level, meaning it would be clueless as to the underlying disk access method. To the O/S and software, it should just look like a drive/volume. Maybe I'm missing something more to the puzzle. But I would think it would work for you. Good luck Don -----Original Message----- From: Gill, Geoffrey L. [mailto:GEOFFREY.L.GILL@;SAIC.COM] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 12:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Journaling Ok I finally figured out why journaling is not working on this server. It's because the 4 million plus files are on a SAN attached disk and journaling does not support that, only local. What good is that????? Is there any good reason to use SAN disk these days anyway? Geoff Gill TSM Administrator NT Systems Support Engineer SAIC E-Mail: <mailto:gillg@;saic.com> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (858) 826-4062 Pager: (877) 905-7154
