Journals? We don't need no stinking journals!
Okay, it's not "need", but "IBM(r) highly recommends" - at least for an
online save. In my memory, this transformed to "need". But you're right,
I was wrong.
Source is the fine manual:
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v5r3/index.jsp?topic=/r
zaiu/rzaiurzaiu348.htm
Not supported by all applications? You mean you can take your system
to
a restricted state but you can't end a single application for 15
minutes?
We have applications that do not use or support journaling/commitment
control - yes, it's the application developers fault.
We're a small business - just like our customers. 5 hours of downtime
isn't a problem (in the middle of the night), and with the downtime I'm
sure that it works. Quiescenting the system before SWA just gives me all
the problems of SWA, without any benefits.
Additional maintenance effort? Once your backup is set up properly it
should need approximately 0 maintenance.
But journals do. That was written under the impression that SWA
_requires_ journals, but they do not. I stand corrected.
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[
mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ingvaldson, Scott
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 6:11 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: Backup strategy
setting up full system, fully automated backups on i5/OS is
cumbersome, and can't be done online unless you use SWA, which requires
journals and which is not supported by all application and gives
additional maintenance effort.
Journals? We don't need no stinking journals!
Not supported by all applications? You mean you can take your system to
a restricted state but you can't end a single application for 15
minutes?
Additional maintenance effort? Once your backup is set up properly it
should need approximately 0 maintenance. Even new objects should get
backed up automagically. BRMS will even tell you if you missed
anything: msgBRM1570 - Library QPFRDATA is not included in save
strategy.
Please Read The Fine Manuals.
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v5r3/topic/books/sc4153
04.pdf
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v5r3/topic/books/sc4153
45.pdf
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg244840.pdf
Regards,
Scott Ingvaldson
System i Administrator
GuideOne Mutual Insurance Company
-----Original Message-----
From: Lukas Beeler [
mailto:l.beeler@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 10:32 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: Backup strategy
I take issue with the way you continually point at this or that in the
system and basically engage in name calling.
I'm not a marketing person. But yes, I could use better words to do this
- and yes, I sometimes exaggerate things that I don't like from time to
time. I'm not perfect either.
I would argue that my Windows 2003 server isn't doing that now because
I haven't configured it.
All backups have to be configured - I don't have a problem with setting
up BRMS and configuring control groups. The issue I have is that setting
up full system, fully automated backups on i5/OS is cumbersome, and
can't be done online unless you use SWA, which requires journals and
which is not supported by all application and gives additional
maintenance effort.
Windows Server 2003 ships with ntbackup - which is awful, especially
when dealing with tapes. You will need complicated scripts that have
several race conditions because labeling the tapes etc. isn't handled by
ntbackup. Using ntbackup for production backups is an absolute
nightmare. But even ntbackup supports Shadow Copies (and they are
enabled by default), that can backup all your files online, your
Exchange IS, and your SQL Database.
(e.G.
http://ntbackup.no-ip.com/)
But with an additional cost feature (like BRMS is for i5/OS), you can
buy for example Symantec BackupExec. Symantec BackupExec can be setup by
a drooling monkey and does all of the stuff right - you can do a full
system save (while the system is online - you just need a few seconds of
a quiet period, this can be achieved by pausing services for a minute)
together with IDR (Intelligent Disaster Recover) media, which gives you
a similar experience to a D IPL from a Save 21.
This is all cool and dandy, until you want to restore your Windows
Backup to another Machine. Here is where i5/OS shines. Restoring Windows
to different hardware can be an absolute PITA. This is why most bigger
Windows environments just backup the data and do automatic
reinstallation of failed servers, and then restore the data from
redundancy etc. (it depends a lot on the size of the environment,
though). But tape backups are still the best way for small businesses.
While this is a huge benefit to many organizations (yours too it
seems) it is also one of our largest problems.
It's interesting, I made the exact same point in a discussion in the
midrange chat yesterday.
Thinking your suggestions fall on deaf ears is simply wrong.
I've had two major issues, one regarding the Windows Print Driver for
creating Color AFP Overlays, and another related to the Thin Console.
Dealing with IBM was excruating and unproductive.
http://projectdream.org/misc/pmr-overlays.txt
Yes, I've called them back on this one, since they told me Q1/2007 was
the time this might be implemented. I was promised a return call, but
never got one.
http://projectdream.org/misc/PMR-ThinConsole.htm
I was asked to submit a DCR - I did. Never received a response.
Since then I stopped submitting Non-Breaking Problems to IBM, because
they obviously do not care about fixing problems in their products.
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[
mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Larry Bolhuis
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 5:01 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Backup strategy
Lukas,
No System i is not perfect though I will continue to argue that it IS
the best system going.
I take issue with the way you continually point at this or that in the
system and basically engage in name calling. "nasty hack", 'lazy" and
phrases like that do not do ANYTHING to make people want to listen to
you or want to improve the product. Statements like:
"Windows can do all this without any downtime, and without any special
configuration."
are gratuitous in nature and not even true. I would argue that my
Windows 2003 server isn't doing that now because I haven't configured
it. Therefore it must require at least some special configuration. On
the other hand I know of System i shops who were doing complete
unattended backups back when their System i still said S/38 on the
front.
You state that SWA doesn't work for your software because it is not
current. That is not IBM's fault. IBM has been telling us to use
commitment control for 15 years. Therefore you are 'lazy' as you've had
since you were 8 years old to fix this and you still aren't done.
You must realize that one of the largest benefits of System i is the
ability to run code from 25 years ago, in some cases without so much as
a re-compile. It does that on the smallest and the largest machines in
the family. While this is a huge benefit to many organizations (yours
too it seems) it is also one of our largest problems. It allows problems
like applications without commitment control which therefore make
functions like SWA orders of magnitude more difficult to implement.
This means those "lazy" people at IBM can either spend their time on new
functions that we all want or on support for applications that were they
modernized wouldn't need the support!
Microsoft simply drops support for things and tells us to 'write new' or
'update your stuff'. While IBM clearly does this too they hang on to
things in some cases far longer than they really should to support the
'lazy' user community who doesn't want to update their code.
If you truly want to help then suggest suggest suggest. Name calling,
and gratuitous statements that one OS is better than another don't help
anyone and they anger many. Certainly not everything you suggest will be
implemented, there are only so many hours and dollars and of course what
you want may be something others don't want. There must be balance.
Thinking your suggestions fall on deaf ears is simply wrong. I have made
many suggestions and I know it often takes years for them to come to
light. Often when I suggest something I'm told it's already in the plan
because someone else beat me to it, good for them.
Like the poor guy who lit a fire in his kayak to stay warm causing it to
sink, you will discover that you can't have your kayak and heat it too.
-Larry
Lukas Beeler wrote:
I'm puzzled by your reply. The System i isn't perfect, and I don't
think
it's bad to talk about the flaws about any given platform - in the
long
term this will help the platform to improve.
I've been working with the System i for two years now, and I'm
currently
23 years old - thus I'm probably not the average person on this list
that has started on an AS/400. I also don't think that the System i is
the golden bullet to any IT problem.
There are many things that are good about it, but I don't really have
much interest in those, as a technician I have to care about the
things
that do not work, or do not work good.
I've had my share of contacts with IBM, and I've submitted several
PMRs
and Change Requests, and I've mostly fallen on deaf ears (most
probably
because we sell to small businesses and not 5 million US$ 595 like
other
people on this list).
I do not think that the System i is a bad platform, and I enjoy
working
with it. But I think it's very important to have a look at the flaws
of
this platform, and make them public. I'm neither a fan or supporter of
Windows or the System i - I work with both extensively, and I share my
experiences. As I'm not a marketing person, there's not much reason to
share all the good stories about the System i, there's also no reason
for me to post a list of things that Windows does much worse than the
System i.
I regularly blog about my experiences, and I've also published a few
manuals that are more straightforward than IBMs usual writing
(http://projectdream.org/wordpress/category/system-i/).
I'm not going the retract my "IBM is lazy" statement, as I still
consider it to be true. But if it helps, I will add that Microsoft is
lazy too.
If the consent of this list (and not your sole opinion) is that I
should
unsubscribe because I have an opinion different from the Usual
midrange-l groupthink, then I will do so.
Personal replies welcome.
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Larry Bolhuis
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 2:07 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Backup strategy
Lukas.
Please leave our platform. It obviously does not work for you and I am
puzzled as to why you continue to run it with it's massive flaws, ugly
hacks, and incomplete capabilities. Clear Windows has everything you
would ever need in an operating system. Please enjoy it and I hope tt
will never fail you.
With your last comment I would recommend you apologize to the hundreds
of fine folks in Rochester who put their heart and soul into this
operating sytem. That is an INSULT and you should retract it
forthwith.
- Larry
Lukas Beeler wrote:
BRMS console was a nasty hack that required manual interaction with
the
system - thus, completely unusable for deployment. With V5R4, BRMS
can
finally do all the stuff on it's own.
Quote:
However, you must start the console monitoring function on the system
console prior to leaving the machine to operate in unattended mode.
SWA is, for all intents and purposes, unusable - it has complicated
requirements for restores and also doesn't work correctly with legacy
programs that are not transaction safe. Thus, SWA is not an option
(at
least for us).
And hey, Windows can do all this without any downtime, and without
any
special configuration or waiting for V5R4. IBM is just lazy.
midrange.com
