90% an exercise to clean out obsolete garbage. 10% an exercise in becoming more familiar with SFS, something we've neglected far too long and which could make multi-VM system support easier in the future.
Now, if only SFS had an option to log who, and. what accessed a file we could really clean house. But that breaks "the last 10% rule": the last 10% takes 90% of the effort and cost, making it a poor ROI. Some small changes to our COPY2 EXEC will make keeping the shadow copy on SFS (and it's HEWITT PARTCAT) transparent. But we will need to automate detection and reporting of any changes that might occur (maybe VMFCOPY from a product install or service, or a manual COPYFILE or ERASE) outside of COPY2. That should not be very difficult, either. Once the old garbage is cleaned out we may revert to the 019E disk again. We'll see how it goes. Mike Walter ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Boyes" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 06/14/2007 07:14 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Y-disk housekeeping using SFS. > I suppose that I should have started this thread by stating right away that > we have and use > SAFESFS. Given it's price, ease of use, the complexity of SFS's native ACLs, > and the > reduction in backup times from hugely fewer authorizations, I can't > understand why anyone > using SFS would not have purchased and installed SAFESFS. It is lovely, isn't it? I thought I remembered you had it, but worth reminding others of how nifty it is. It cures almost all the annoying bits about SFS. Now, if someone would teach SFS to do snapshot and copy-on-write so that one could do easy, consistent backups with it live... well, that's another project. > R: I did not seriously consider that. I figured that we have so few CMS > users now that > everyone could have their own 19E disk accessed without noticing all that > much resource > utilization. It might be true. But the Y-STAT might be mitigated by Kris' > DIRCONTROL/dataspace suggestion. These days, it probably doesn't matter much. Most people have comparatively so much real storage available that the old ways of saving every little scrap are probably more work than absolutely necessary. > But given that we'll keep the MAINT 019E disk current, we'll probably just > not place most > hidden files on SFS to begin with (except the VMSES PARTCAT Y1, HEWITT > PARTCAT Y1, and the > GENDIRT'ed files). I guess I would ask at this point why you want the SFS copy if you're going to maintain the minidisk anyway. Multi-system access, or just an excuse to clean out the cruft? The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.
