Hi Rob

Agreed about the problems and effects of SYNCLIB(*SYSDFN).

In all of the situations I have seen people using this it has been a lack of
understanding about:
- what it really means in terms of recovery
- and/or no knowledge of how data relationships affect the recovery process.


Generally speaking people see this as an easy way to tick the "backup ran
successfully" box, even if, as you point out, the backup is all but useless
for recovery.

Nearly as bad as the people who ignore the "1 object not saved" message on
the basis that "it's only 1 object, right ?"

Regards
Evan Harris

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 21 August 2009 7:37 a.m.
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Commitment Control (was: Modernizing applications (was:
Explaining single level store tonon ipeople))

Keep pounding Lukas. We chipped away a little. He saw it a little, and
then blew it by saying that his programming ensures they are all written
out together.

I'm saying not just system crashes. There's also the people who insist on
SAVACT(*SYSDFN). In theory they could save the orderheader out of sync
with the orderline file. These people cross their fingers that they never
have to restore from this - like us. All they care is that people can
still work when a save is running. The save doesn't really have to be
useful.

Rob Berendt

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2019 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].