So with FILE CONTROL you can't replace co-dependent files in one atomic
operation, as one would do with the 'copyfile two-step' (love that phrase!)?
Les
Alan Altmark wrote:
On Monday, 03/21/2011 at 10:54 EDT, Les Koehler <vmr...@tampabay.rr.com>
wrote:
Does FILE CONTROL thus have the same exposure to a file being changed
'under the
covers' as a minidisk has, possibly causing an error for the other
users?
Is there something similar to the minidisk trick of:
copyfile new1 version a pseudo1 name k (noupdir
copyfile new2 version a pseudo2 name k (noupdir
rename old1 version k save1 version k (noupdir
rename old2 version k save2 version k (noupdir
rename pseudo1 name k old1 version k (noupdir
rename pseudo2 name k old2 version k
(hope I got that right!) to avoid impacting other users?
You never get ERROR 3 READING FILE with SFS and you don't use the
"copyfile twostep" with SFS. You just change the files. If someone
accesses the directory while you're updating, then they will see changed
files on for files that are closed when they access it. In that respect,
DIRCONTROL directories are better than minidisks.
FILECONTROL directories reveal file changes immediately. I.e. you can
open a file and see one set of content, then close and re-open and see
something new. But you never see a mix and you never see the file while
it is open and being written to - you see the old version. And if you
erase a file in a FILECONTROL directory, all authorizations are lost.
Alan Altmark
z/VM and Linux on System z Consultant
IBM System Lab Services and Training
ibm.com/systems/services/labservices
office: 607.429.3323
mobile; 607.321.7556
alan_altm...@us.ibm.com
IBM Endicott
