So if we divide the drives in separate categories:
1. Locally attached IDE/SCSI disks - direct-attached-storage (DAS)
2. Direct FC-attached to single system (I am avoiding to use non-shared
term here) - again DAS but using FC
3. SAN-attached disks/subsystems used by single server -
SAN-attached-storage (SAS)
4. SAN-attached disks/subsystems used by several servers but no concurrent
acces to same LUN (again I will not call them SAN-shared to avoid
confusion) - SAS
5. SAN-attached disks/subsystems used by several servers with concurrent
acces to same LUN (in our case MSCS) - SAS
6. LANMAN shares mounted on the TSM client - network-attached-storage
(NAS)
which one ought to be able to use journaling???
IMO categories 1,2,3,4&5 ought to be assumed "local" from Windows point of
view (they are accessed through HBAs not by LAN). So they ought to be
detected by TSM client's "all-local" domain except #5. The latter is not
an exception in attachment but is specifically treated in a MSCS
environment (and *is* supported since v5.1)
Bottom line: DAS & SAS ought to be supported for journaling while NAS
would be normal to expect is not supported.
Back to Geoff's problem - if I understood it correct his configuration is
in 3-rd or 4-th category. In both cases it *should* work.
I guess the support person was confused by somewhere used word "shared"
and categorized the case in #6 (and the requirement should be not for
product enhancement but for support staff education)
Zlatko Krastev
IT Consultant
Pete Tanenhaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
07.11.2002 23:10
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
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"
---------------------- Forwarded by Pete Tanenhaus/San Jose/IBM on
11/07/2002 03:56 PM ---------------------------
"Whitlow, Don" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@VM.MARIST.EDU> on 11/07/2002 03:19:47
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
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
