[Info-vax] NEW HBVS question

[Phillip Helbig undress to reply]

In article <qn6ifo$85e$2 at pcls7.std.com>, moroney at world.std.spaamtrap.com
(Michael Moroney) writes: 

> >The difference to the three-member shadow set is that there were no 
> >WRITEs to the two shadow sets in question, so actually a copy was not 
> >required.  My question is how HBVS could have known that there were no 
> >WRITEs.
> 
> >Yes, I could have missed a minicopy.  I thought that if I shut down the 
> >entire cluster (properly or not), then the bitmaps used by minicopy 
> >would disappear, since they are only in RAM.  Or are they written to 
> >disk (at least in case of a proper shutdown)?
> 
> It's kind of hard to figure out from what you have posted. I suggest you troll
> through the OPERATOR.LOGs to see what shadowing has been up to since this
> instance of the cluster was created.
> 
> As goofy as shadowing can be at times, one thing I've never seen it get wrong
> is not doing copies/merges when it should. We'd know about that very quickly 
> since getting that wrong will show up rapidly as bizarrely corrupted data.
> 
> What do SHOW SHADOW and SHOW DEVICE say?

Back from holiday, cluster still OK with the new BA356 installed just 
before leaving.

As you say, SHADOWING rarely if ever gets it wrong.  Perhaps the 
minicopies on these relatively small disks were so quick that I didn't 
notice them.  I'll check the logs.