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
Don.Whitlow AT qg DOT com


-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Tanenhaus [mailto:tanenhau AT US.IBM DOT COM]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 1:57 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
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: tanenhau AT us.ibm DOT com
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" <Don.Whitlow AT QG DOT COM>@VM.MARIST.EDU> on 11/07/2002 02:24:36
PM

Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>

Sent by:    "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>


To:    ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
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 AT SAIC DOT COM]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 12:28 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
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 AT saic DOT com> gillg AT saic DOT com
Phone:  (858) 826-4062
 Pager:   (877) 905-7154