On Wednesday, 04/01/2009 at 09:46 EDT, Alan Ackerman <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was under the impression (from something I read here) that the cached C > MS list of files was > updated when someone changed files on the directory. For SFS to inform CM > S of this would > required that it know that CMS had it accessed. If this isn't what happen > s, I'll have to try to find > that previous discussion and attempt to understand it again. This was addressed in another post. Yes, there is a cache of meta data. > If I access a file-control directory and issue LISTFILE * * fm, then some > one adds or deletes a file > on the directory and I issue LISTFILE * * fm again, does it show the diff > erence? (I think it does.) Yes. > If > so, how? Does it reload the entire file list each time from the SFS serve > r? If so, what is the value of > caching the list? If memory serves, the cache allowed CMS to detect that someone else had changed the file under you so that XEDIT, for example, could warn you that the file had changed and "Are you sure?" (I have oh-so-vague recollections that the cache was a late add.) \ > Same question for a dircontrol directory. (I suspect it doesn't show the > difference.) The whole point of dircontrol directories is the access-to-release consistency of the content. As long as you have the directory accessed, no changes to the files in it will be visible to you, so it doesn't really matter if the cache is present or not. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
