Re: DSPJRN OUTPUT(*OUTFILE) and resulting record length

[Joe Pluta <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/16/2011 8:45 PM, CRPence wrote:
> On 3/16/11 4:18 PM, Evan Harris wrote:
> > If you compared the journal types from yesterday to today you might
> > be able to narrow the search to the entry they created presuming that
> > was the issue (sounds quite possible). Might be just a matter of
> > excluding certain Journal entry types when dumping journal
> > transactions to a file.
> >
> > Does the HA software provide any indication of which journal entries
> > are for their use ?
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Joe
> > Pluta<joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>   wrote:
> > > > An anomaly as in we updated our HA software and they may have put
> > > > a placeholder entry into the journal.
>     A "placeholder entry" seems questionable as a conclusion, given that
> there is only the one method of send\write for the journal entry via the
> journal into the attached journal receiver.?  That conclusion would have
> to suppose there was either a change-entry or remove-entry method,
> either of which would be problematic for the supposed integrity of the
> journal feature as a means to implement security auditing.?
>
>     That is to say, if there was a large entry that existed in the prior
> DSPJRN, and the same range of sequence numbers were displayed again, one
> should expect the same results should be seen.  I would conclude more
> likely that either the same range is not being displayed, some entries
> are being excluded from that range in the newer requests, or if the
> request is indeed identical each time then there was more probably a
> defect encountered that for some reason is no longer being exhibited.


Your conclusion would be incorrect, Chuck.  You're assuming the contents 
of the journal receivers are the same and the command is different.  
Both are bad assumptions.

The DSPJRN commands are exactly the same.  I am comparing the results of 
a completely unfiltered DSPJRN from yesterday and the same command 
executed today.

The content of the receivers is different.  These receivers are detached 
and deleted regularly and only a finite span of time is available in the 
journal at any point in time.  It's quite possible that the large entry 
was available in yesterday's receivers and not today's.

In any case, the situation is gone.  I will monitor it and if it occurs 
again I will try to see what caused the entry.  Until then, since the 
entry causing the problem is gone, there is no way to do any further 
analysis.

Thanks everyone for your time.

Joe