well... the "disregard the error" comment is indeed a suggested
workaround for this error message, but keep in mind that the
"workaround" is no longer necessary since the patch stops the
spurious errors from appearing.
my point being, a lame interim workaround is better than a lame
permanent workaround. :-))
HTH
rob
At 10:27 AM -0700 7/18/03, Eikenberry, Marcus - CIDS-2 wrote:
>Quote: Workaround:
> Unless the lock really did fail, there will be no data loss. The
> recommended workaround would be to disregard the error in the log.
>
> (All NetBackup Servers)
>-----------------
>
>This is funny. Yes I can ignore the error. It has been ignored for
>several months now. When I started working with these systems the
>error log was 44,000 lines a day. I have it down to about 1500 lines
>a day. the goal of course is to get everything running smoothly
>without errors other then the normal ones of a system not being
>available or a file busy. It seems to me to be sloppy to ignore
>it. I don't understand how a company can make a recommendation to
>ignore errors.
>
>I am still working on this one even if it can be ignored. When I do
>come up with the resolution I'll be sure to post it. :)
>
>Marcus Eikenberry
>Server Operations
>United States Department of Energy
>Bonneville Power Administration
>503.230.3300
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Chapa [mailto:david.chapa AT adic DOT com]
>Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 10:21 AM
>To: Eikenberry, Marcus - CIDS-2; Sherman, John (MLIM); Veritas-Bu LIST
>(E-mail)
>Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] F_UNLCK failed
>
>
>>From 45_5M Readme.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>Description:
> F_UNLOCK <16> error no longer appears in the bpdbm log when
>compression
> is not due. The process was trying to unlock a file that was not
>locked.
>
>Workaround:
> Unless the lock really did fail, there will be no data loss. The
> recommended workaround would be to disregard the error in the log.
>
> (All NetBackup Servers)
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>
>At least it's an official response.
>
>David Chapa
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Eikenberry, Marcus - CIDS-2 [mailto:mjeikenberry AT bpa DOT gov]
>Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 9:44 AM
>To: 'Sherman, John (MLIM)'; Veritas-Bu LIST (E-mail)
>Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] F_UNLCK failed
>
>I have figured out that it does stand for "File Unlock". There are lots
>of mentions of it when I do a search where it shows it in use in code
>examples. What I have not been able to find is a solid definition of
>it. I get this error about 150 times a day.
>
>One thing I did notice though. The error always references the same
>number.
>
>07/10/2003 10:37:33 V1 S:taz C:? J:0 (U:0,0) Error(0x10) General(0x2)
>bpdbm unlock 2130640639 F_UNLCK failed
>
>I'm thinking that I may go at this a different way and see if I can find
>what the "2130640639" number is referring to and research it from that
>direction. It could be just a simple case of the file permissions
>getting screwed up or something and they just need to be reset.
>
>Marcus Eikenberry
>Server Operations
>United States Department of Energy
>Bonneville Power Administration
>503.230.3300
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sherman, John (MLIM) [mailto:ShermJo AT exchange.ML DOT com]
>Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 8:29 AM
>To: Eikenberry, Marcus - CIDS-2; Veritas-Bu LIST (E-mail)
>Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] F_UNLCK failed
>
>
>Marcus,
>
>I am guessing here, but is this the situation where you would use the
>LOCKED_FILE_ACTION=SKIP directive in your bp.conf ?
>
>We have Essbase in our shop and it will lock files ( a lower case l
>(ell) will be present when viewing the permissions on a particular file
>); the man page refers to it as "mandatory locking" on a
>SUN server; before we specified this, our backup would hang and not
>complete; I am guessing that F_UNLCK is File_UNLoCK. Am I close ? Do you
>have files that are locked ?
>
>Sorry if this is off base .....
>
>john
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Eikenberry, Marcus - CIDS-2 [mailto:mjeikenberry AT bpa DOT gov]
>Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 11:10 AM
>To: Veritas-Bu LIST (E-mail)
>Subject: [Veritas-bu] F_UNLCK failed
>
>
>Anyone know any information about the error "F_UNLCK failed"? I asked
>about it once before with no reply and I looked through the archives for
>this group. Two other people have asked about it as
>well with no reply. Does anyone have any info about what the "F_UNLCK
>failed" error is?
>
>Marcus Eikenberry
>Server Operations
>United States Department of Energy
>Bonneville Power Administration
>503.230.3300
>
>_______________________________________________
>Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>_______________________________________________
>Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>_______________________________________________
>Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
|
