found an interesting command in sysprog bp , reclaim-ovf. does this
command work like the old link-ws command used to in r83 ?

No.

Link-ws was Link Workspace and all it did was create the 32 frame
link-chains for each users PIB.

reclaim-ovf is intended to scan the disk and find frames that have the scrub
signature but are not in the ovf table, "lost' overflow.

Mark Brown


<EMERY_BILL (AT) HOTMAIL (DOT) COM> wrote

does the reclain-ovf work ?

<EMERY_BILL (AT) HOTMAIL (DOT) COM> wrote

Sure, if you have any to reclaim.

There are two or three major reasons for losing overflow and almost none of
them leave clean overflow outside the table. If you have to kill a
processes, you will almost certainly lose some overflow that the process is
using that can't be located by the LOGOFF process. If you are copying
native OS items (dos, *nix, etc) into Pick, there's no real file/item to
process, so Pick uses overflow to temporarily hold those remote items.
STARTSPOOLER (I simply overlays a pointer to the whole PEQS structure, thus
losing overflow.

Mark

"Mark Brown" <mbrown (AT) drexelmgt (DOT) com> wrote

[snip]

Mark (et al)

I don't want to disagree with you, (and having already made one mistake here
today, I'm loathed to make another), but please find below the first 12
lines of the RECLAIM-OVF as it appears in DM,BP, on the D3/Linux (7.4.0) box
I'm currently sat at:

001 !
002 *
003 * Program to activate the RECLAIM-OVF process
004 *
005 * [01] 15jul96 rr: modify shutdown message
006 * [02] 16jul96 rr: ensure maxusers > 0
007 * [03] 04feb03 rr: ensure in DM acct
008 * [04] 03apr03 rr: [28284] Log execution to errors file
009 * [05] 21Jul03 rr: [28670] Use new licensing scheme for >= 7.4
010 * [06] 19Apr04 ral: [29755] Disable this feature for now
011 *
012 stop 4326; *[06] disable for now

I respectfully draw your attention to lines 10 and 12.

I haven't got an R&E report to hand, so I can't look up the details for item
29755, but after looking at the source as posted above, when I ran
RECLAIM-OVF, I received, "[4326] Not supported on this implementation." as
expected.

Are you sure its working, or is it just a D3/Linux 7.4.0 thing?

With Kindest Regards

Mike Wooding