As stated in my previous append, we can't support nonlocal drives because
the Win32 api used to monitor the file system
doesn't support them.

Supporting nonlocal file systems isn't impossible (most things aren't), it
just would involve considerable development effort
and it's up to the "powers that be" to decide if it's worth the investment
(feel free to lobby your IBM rep to submit a requirement).

As to the usefulness of Journal Based Backup, I'd like to think to it does
provides some value in environments with very large
local file systems and moderate amounts of change activity.

As with most functions, Journal Based Backup doesn't provide every possible
desired feature possible, but we did the best
with what we had to work with.

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 02:57 PM ---------------------------

"Gill, Geoffrey L." <GEOFFREY.L.GILL AT SAIC DOT COM>@VM.MARIST.EDU> on 
11/07/2002
02:38:36 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



Yes, I thought so too. What good is it if features come out and they don't
work everywhere?

I don't recall anyone on the list mentioned this so I didn't think about it
either.

TSM Support just informed me that's why it's working on the 2 other drives
and not this one.

Geoff Gill
TSM Administrator
NT Systems Support Engineer
SAIC
E-Mail:   gillg AT saic DOT com
Phone:  (858) 826-4062
Pager:   (877) 905-7154


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Whitlow, Don [mailto:Don.Whitlow AT QG DOT COM]
> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 11:25 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> 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