Has anyone tried a user defined subsystem to manage the problem Joe had with ownership? UDFS, like QOpenSys, doesn't have *OBJMGT, *OBJEXIST, *OBJALTER, and *OBJREF, while root does. Here:
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v5r4/topic/rzamv/rzamvplanifssec.htm
I wonder if this difference also keeps the object ownership from being added to the user profile. If so, it might also make UDFS a good place to keep millions and millions of little document files.
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Schoen
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:49 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: massive document storage in the IFS - how to handle Mimix
QNTC bad :-(
NFS good :-)
If SAN storage could be used like a mounted Network Storage space wehre the entire blob can be backed at once, that would be good perhaps.
Regards,
Richard Schoen
RJS Software Systems Inc.
Where Information Meets Innovation
Document Management, Workflow, Report Delivery, Forms and Business Intelligence
Email: richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web Site:
http://www.rjssoftware.com
Tel: (952) 736-5800
Fax: (952) 736-5801
Toll Free: (888) RJSSOFT
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:43 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: MIDRANGE-L Digest, Vol 12, Issue 1080
Send MIDRANGE-L mailing list submissions to
midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
You can reach the person managing the list at
midrange-l-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of MIDRANGE-L digest..."
*** NOTE: When replying to this digest message, PLEASE remove all text unrelated to your reply and change the subject line so it is meaningful.
Today's Topics:
------------------------------
message: 2
date: Mon, 20 May 2013 15:01:57 -0400 (EDT)
from: Vern Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
subject: Re: massive document storage in the IFS - how to handle Mimix
Hi Rob
Yeah, that sounds right - of course, I wonder if being on a SAN through NFS or even QNTC is something that is almost synonymous with ownership coming from elsewhere. Are there situations where objects on a SAN are considered to be ON the IBM i? I had meant "on a SAN" to be about access through non-native protocols like NFS.
Just have to explain better, eh?
Vern
----- Original Message -----
Vern,
It's not that it's on a SAN that makes all the difference. It's that the SAN is not running under IBM i that makes the difference. You're mapping to it. Like mapping to a Windows drive. There's no IBM i object ownership involved.
Unless they are talking about an IASP type SAN. But I think that would still involve object ownership I believe.
Rob Berendt
--
IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1 Group Dekko Dept 1600 Mail to: 2505 Dekko Drive
Garrett, IN 46738
Ship to: Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com
midrange.com
