>>>> It's a new feature in Windows Server 2007 (?).
>>>
>>> A new feature that Novell had in Netware 3.10 back in 1990.
>>
>> And Amiga OS had premptive multitasking and a full GUI back when PC
>> users were still playing with MS-DOS. Your point?
>
> That is is hardly a new feature.

And *my* point is that _most_ new Windows features aren't very new at all...

> Most software (Office is - or was - famous for that.) no longer rewrite
> the entire file when you do a "save". It only appends a "changes"
> section at the end of the file

I would rather dispute that. It seems to be that Microsoft Office is the 
exception here, rather than the rule... And now that even MS Office uses 
a zipped XML format, I don't think even that is true any more.

And even if it is, how does that help you recover prior versions?

> This being said, I wonder how Windows Server 2008 would know that it
> should save multiple copies of a 5MB TPS Reports.ppt, but not multiple
> copies of a 64GB payroll.dbf.

I presume it doesn't. I would expect it to just blindly copy everything, 
regardless of the dire performance implications. It's highly 
sophisticated software, after all...

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:07:13 -0500, Francois Labreque wrote:

> Le 2013-01-28 21:43, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:16:16 -0500, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>
>>>> It's a new feature in Windows Server 2007 (?).
>>>
>>> A new feature that Novell had in Netware 3.10 back in 1990.
>>
>> I was thinking the same thing.  That was the migration feature IIRC.
>> Migrated data from fast disk storage to slower optical storage.
> 
> No, I was just thinking of the SALVAGE utility that allowed you to
> restore previous copies of files.  (a bit similar to Norton's UNERASE,
> but that would work on non-contiguous files)

Oh, yes, that was also available on 2.x, I think.

The difference, though, is that there was no guarantee that a prior 
version would still be there.  With SALVAGE, the blocks were marked as 
freeable and the DET entry was moved to DELETED.SAV if the directory were 
removed (I think in some cases it always was moved there, but at some 
point it was just marked in the DET in the directory as deleted until it 
was purged or the blocks were used).

If the blocks the file was stored in were needed for storage, though, 
then the file would be permanently deleted.

Or, obviously, if the PURGE utility were run.

HSM, on the other hand, preserved copies of files on optical media, but 
probably didn't catch all revisions.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> This being said, I wonder how Windows Server 2008 would know that it
>> should save multiple copies of a 5MB TPS Reports.ppt, but not multiple
>> copies of a 64GB payroll.dbf.
>
> I presume it doesn't. I would expect it to just blindly copy everything,
> regardless of the dire performance implications. It's highly
> sophisticated software, after all...

 From what I could make out, it seems like Previous Versions only works 
on files and folders that are set up under Windows Backup - so should be 
trivial to prevent your 64GB payroll.dbf having previous versions kept.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-01-29 14:35, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>>>>> It's a new feature in Windows Server 2007 (?).
>>>>
>>>> A new feature that Novell had in Netware 3.10 back in 1990.
>>>
>>> And Amiga OS had premptive multitasking and a full GUI back when PC
>>> users were still playing with MS-DOS. Your point?
>>
>> That is is hardly a new feature.
>
> And *my* point is that _most_ new Windows features aren't very new at
> all...
>
>> Most software (Office is - or was - famous for that.) no longer rewrite
>> the entire file when you do a "save". It only appends a "changes"
>> section at the end of the file
>
> I would rather dispute that. It seems to be that Microsoft Office is the
> exception here, rather than the rule... And now that even MS Office uses
> a zipped XML format, I don't think even that is true any more.
>

Why would that be? It's been possible to append to an existing zip since 
the early 90s.

And even if MS Office was the exception, most people in a corporate 
environment do not use anything else that stores files on a networked drive.

[Depressing Story Bro]
One of my wife's coworkers: "I wish I could group my files logically 
instead of having them all in the same place."
Other coworker: "Oh, it's easy.  All you have to do is start Word, and 
click on File / Open...  From there there's an icon that allows you to 
create folders."
My wife: "There has to be an easier way..."
Coworker #1: "Yeah, why don't you call your husband... He works in IT, 
he should know"
[End DSB]



> And even if it is, how does that help you recover prior versions?
>

Because on Netware servers, "deleted" is just another attribute for the 
file starting at sector XYZ.

So if the application deletes the existing file before recreating a new 
one, the server will have two copies of the file on disk, with one that 
has the deleted attribute.

So you could easily revert to earlier versions of the file by using the 
SALVAGE command.

(And yes, server-based backup software are smart enough to back up the 
deleted versions as well, if you asked them, just as they could backup 
compressed files without decompressing them)
-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-01-29 16:44, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:07:13 -0500, Francois Labreque wrote:
>
>> Le 2013-01-28 21:43, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:16:16 -0500, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It's a new feature in Windows Server 2007 (?).
>>>>
>>>> A new feature that Novell had in Netware 3.10 back in 1990.
>>>
>>> I was thinking the same thing.  That was the migration feature IIRC.
>>> Migrated data from fast disk storage to slower optical storage.
>>
>> No, I was just thinking of the SALVAGE utility that allowed you to
>> restore previous copies of files.  (a bit similar to Norton's UNERASE,
>> but that would work on non-contiguous files)
>
> Oh, yes, that was also available on 2.x, I think.
>
> The difference, though, is that there was no guarantee that a prior
> version would still be there.  With SALVAGE, the blocks were marked as
> freeable and the DET entry was moved to DELETED.SAV if the directory were
> removed (I think in some cases it always was moved there, but at some
> point it was just marked in the DET in the directory as deleted until it
> was purged or the blocks were used).
>
> If the blocks the file was stored in were needed for storage, though,
> then the file would be permanently deleted.
>
> Or, obviously, if the PURGE utility were run.

Agreed.  Back in the days of servers with 120MB HDs, I had to purge them 
on a regular basis.



-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:55:35 -0500, Francois Labreque wrote:

> Agreed.  Back in the days of servers with 120MB HDs, I had to purge them
> on a regular basis.

:)

Though it shouldn't have been necessary, but I saw situations where it 
was as well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-01-31 13:08, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:55:35 -0500, Francois Labreque wrote:
>
>> Agreed.  Back in the days of servers with 120MB HDs, I had to purge them
>> on a regular basis.
>
> :)
>
> Though it shouldn't have been necessary, but I saw situations where it
> was as well.
>
> Jim
>
I think it did send alerts about running low on disk space (or memory), 
even if it would automatically reclaim the space if required.

Print queues were usually really bad for that, if the person who built 
the server forgot to flag the directory "immediate delete".

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:18:20 -0500, Francois Labreque wrote:

> I think it did send alerts about running low on disk space (or memory),
> even if it would automatically reclaim the space if required.

Disk space, probably, and in 2.x or 3.10 that may have been the case.
 
> Print queues were usually really bad for that, if the person who built
> the server forgot to flag the directory "immediate delete".

I think post-3.10, the queue directories were automatically flagged 
"purge immediate".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-01-31 17:27, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:18:20 -0500, Francois Labreque wrote:
>
>> I think it did send alerts about running low on disk space (or memory),
>> even if it would automatically reclaim the space if required.
>
> Disk space, probably, and in 2.x or 3.10 that may have been the case.

Directory handles.

It came back to me in the shower.

>
>> Print queues were usually really bad for that, if the person who built
>> the server forgot to flag the directory "immediate delete".
>
> I think post-3.10, the queue directories were automatically flagged
> "purge immediate".
>
> Jim
>


-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 08:53:49 -0500, Francois Labreque wrote:

> Le 2013-01-31 17:27, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:18:20 -0500, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>
>>> I think it did send alerts about running low on disk space (or
>>> memory),
>>> even if it would automatically reclaim the space if required.
>>
>> Disk space, probably, and in 2.x or 3.10 that may have been the case.
> 
> Directory handles.
> 
> It came back to me in the shower.

Ah, yes, that would have changed certainly in 4.0, but a lot of things 
changed in the disk subsystem in 4.0. (compression, block suballocation, 
now that I think about it, HFS/migration might've been introduced at that 
point, too).

Maybe I'll find an engineer who worked on it next week at BrainShare. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message