I submitted this today. I think the only way anyone at IBM is going to do
anything is if more of us request it. Can you imagine what I'm in for? I 'm
told another terabyte of space is going to be added on this one server so I
could expect another 8 million files. It will never get backed up.
I have another computer I can try this on, much much smaller numbers, but
still on the SAN. I'll let you know if anything differs.
Marketing Field Requirement
* = Required Field
|---------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------|
| Number |MR1107026641
|
|---------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------|
| Status |Acknowledged
|
|---------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
--------------------------------------------|
| Section Editors: |
|
|------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
---------------------------------------------|
| |
|
|------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
---------------------------------------------|
| User Marketing Field Requirement Number: | MR1107026641
|
|------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
---------------------------------------------|
| *Title: | Enable Journal Backups for
Network/SAN disks. |
|------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
---------------------------------------------|
| *Description: | Currently the Journal Backups
do not work on Network/SAN disks. Please |
| | change the code to have it
work. |
|------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
-----------------------------------
|------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
---------------------------------------------|
| *Priority: | High
|
|------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
---------------------------------------------|
| |
|
|------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
---------------------------------------------|
| *Requested Completion Date: | 12/31/2002
|
|------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
---------------------------------------------|
| |
|
|------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
---------------------------------------------|
| (Original Requested Date)| 12/31/2002
|
|------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
-----------------------------------
Geoff Gill
TSM Administrator
NT Systems Support Engineer
SAIC
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: (858) 826-4062
Pager: (877) 905-7154
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Tanenhaus [mailto:tanenhau@;US.IBM.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 1:11 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Journaling
>
> By nonlocal I did mean network drives.
>
> To be more precise, drives that NT considers to be network drives.
>
> To perfectly honest, I'm not all that familiar with SAN and haven't tried
> to journal a SAN attached device.
>
> Journal Based Backup relies on the Win32 api ReadDirectoryChangesW to
> monitor file system change activity.
>
> If this api will work with a SAN attached device (it doesn't with mapped
> drives),
> Journal Based Backup will work, if it doesn't it won't.
>
> It hasn't been tested so I can neither confirm nor deny that it will/won't
> work, and of course the official
> position will be that if it hasn't been tested we don't support it.
>
> If you are in a position to try it please post your results on the list,
> I'd be interested.
>
> Implementing Jbb on any type of NAS device would be difficult as NAS
boxes
> only implement (actually
> simulate might be a better term) a portion of the NT file system and any
> type of journaling solution
> would have to work in the context of the file system api support the
> particular NAS vendor provides,
> and I seriously doubt (but don't know for sure) that any type change
> monitor support would be available, and
> even if were it would probably be specific to the particular NAS box
> meaning that we potentially would
> have to implement a different solution each specific NAS filer.
>
>
> 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"
