• Welcome to OS2World OLD-STATIC-BACKUP Forum.
 

News:

This is an old OS2World backup forum for reference only. IT IS READ ONLY!!!

If you need help with OS/2 - eComStation visit http://www.os2world.com/forum

Main Menu

Questions: Upgrading JFS

Started by RobertM, 2008.03.21, 00:11:10

Previous topic - Next topic

RobertM

Hello all,

I am currently running a couple WSeB boxes and an eCS 1.2MR box. I am interested in at least upgrading the JFS on the WSeB boxes (which are running the original JFS from WSeB CP2 PF):

Which brings me to a few questions.... I'm not using JFS to boot from (nor plan on), but I do believe I need to update JFS. I have a version of IBM JFS from either 2004 or 2005 (latest one released).

I was considering updating to either the latest IBM JFS or Open JFS - but am very hesitant because I've got a few hundred gigs of files I dont want to lose (nor spend the time archiving - as many are used and locked by the server daemons and would require them to be shut down the entire time the files are being archived).


  • So my fear is, if I upgrade to the latest IBM JFS or to OpenJFS - can I expect to have data and partitions when I am done?


  • And the final questions I have...

    Which is the better upgrade path?

    Performance wise?

    Stability wise?

    And are there prerequisites (like the 1.104a kernel)?

    And does the OpenJFS version have all the SMP concerns worked out? (I seem to remember that the early IBM JFS did not play well with SMP - even though it was supposed to utilize and benefit from SMP).


Thanks to anyone who has suggestions...
Robert


|
|
Kirk's 5 Year Mission Continues at:
Star Trek New Voyages
|
|


RobertM

For those also considering upgrading JFS from an earlier release to the newest, I will finally be testing this next week (when I manage to ensure I have a full archive of the drive in question) and will post any details I thought helpful, and let everyone know if it was successful.

Rob


|
|
Kirk's 5 Year Mission Continues at:
Star Trek New Voyages
|
|


El Vato

Quote from: RobertM on 2008.03.21, 00:11:10
Hello all,

[...]
to update JFS. I have a version of IBM JFS from either 2004 or 2005 (latest one released).

I believe that in the last update for JFS from IBM (jfsupdt.exe), the (relevant) files were dated 2006-01-25.  All it does is it replaces the current JFS current set adding an extension of D0X to those files replaced.  If you are applying the update manually (as opposed to fixpaks), you might first want to apply the last IBM update for LVM (lvmupdt.exe) to your WSEB --files dated the same as the JFS update.

Quote from: RobertM on 2008.03.21, 00:11:10
I was considering updating to either the latest IBM JFS or Open JFS - but am very hesitant because I've got a few hundred gigs of files I dont want to lose (nor spend the time archiving - [...]

I am not sure which Open JFS you are referring to, Moderator.  However, if it is freeJFS and it (code) has not been touched since 2001, you will risk loosing your data --of course, it depends on which UJFS.DLL you combine with freeJFS.IFS and if you will be playing with those combinations (not recommended for production servers).

Quote from: RobertM on 2008.03.21, 00:11:10
[...]
Which is the better upgrade path?

Performance wise?

Stability wise?

And are there prerequisites (like the 1.104a kernel)?

I am running 14.105_SMP extracted from the last (unofficial fixpak release?) that Martin once provided an informational link to --do not forget to extract also the relevant DOSCALL1.DLL.  You will have to evaluate the metrics on performance (which includes stability) yourself  ;) since my environment is not used as heavily as what you describe.  Note that you may also need the last IBM base driver updates xr_d0031.zip and xr_d0032.zip to decrease the likelihood of driver issues for your storage and peripherals.
[...]

Sorry for the late posting, sometimes I do not visit OS/2World for a while... especially when I have issues to resolve.

Pete

Hi Robert


My experience of changing from the IBM JFS to the eCS BootableJFS was relatively painless; No loss of existing JFS formatted data Volumes or data.

My reason for changing? - I wanted to try BootableJFS on my eCS1.2R system, Works fine  :-)

I guess I should suggest a precautionary backup of all Volumes involved before making any changes - just to be on the safe side.

Regards

Pete

RobertM

Thanks Pete and El Vato!

El Vato, I can only find the LVM update v14.105 - and the earlier IBMDASD update (which's date corresponds to the JFS update).

IBM LVM update 14.105 - download update
Release Date:    09-06-2004 01:04:41 PM
Last Update:   06-23-2006 12:40:31 AM
Type:   Driver
Version:   14.105

I'll be upgrading the kernel as well at the same time to the 14.104a SMP kernel - cant find the 14.105 one.

Should I still proceed with the update, or do I most definitely need the same date LVM update to go with the kernel, IBMDASD (which the LVM update says is a prerequisite) and JFS?

Any help from you or anyone else would be greatly appreciated.

Because.... on the "test" system, while trying to FTP everything off the drive before I tried this, the system crashed (something in the JFS system... forget which component), and refuses to complete chkdsk (Phase 3 I think).

Currently, I am trying to recover the data - with not much luck... trying jRescuer currently to no avail:


  • Does it have to be registered to work?
  • Do I just not know what I am doing?
  • Is it possible (even though jResuer manages to find about 95% of what's on the disk) that the partition that far gone?

If I suceed, I will back up the machine (with ONE simultaneous FTP connection running - not 3, which this version of JFS doesnt seem to like), and then proceed with the update on this machine before I touch the server...


Thanks for any suggestions,
Robert


|
|
Kirk's 5 Year Mission Continues at:
Star Trek New Voyages
|
|


El Vato

Quote from: RobertM on 2008.08.16, 03:28:14
Thanks Pete and El Vato!

El Vato, I can only find the LVM update v14.105 - and the earlier IBMDASD update (which's date corresponds to the JFS update).
[...]
I'll be upgrading the kernel as well at the same time to the 14.104a SMP kernel - cant find the 14.105 one.

Should I still proceed with the update, or do I most definitely need the same date LVM update to go with the kernel, IBMDASD (which the LVM update says is a prerequisite) and JFS?

I believe that  your IDEDASD, JFS and LVM update are ok.  Regarding the kernel, you may search for Martin's past post on xr_c006.zip, download it, and subsequently extract and install the OS2KRNL and DOSCALL1.DLL (PM, PM).

Quote from: RobertM on 2008.08.16, 03:28:14
[...]

Because.... on the "test" system, while trying to FTP everything off the drive before I tried this, the system crashed (something in the JFS system... forget which component), and refuses to complete chkdsk (Phase 3 I think).

Currently, I am trying to recover the data - with not much luck... trying jRescuer currently to no avail:
[...]
Thanks for any suggestions,
Robert


I use GNU/Linux Debian to mount JFS partitions (which are seen by Debian as type 35 unknown).  Accordingly, and although it may not be applicable in your current situation, but for further reference.

section from man page of  jfs_fsck to check and fix the errors of an unclean JFS partitions (non-spanned across several disks and/or partitions)


WARNING
       jfs_fsck  should  only  be  used  to check an unmounted file system or a file system that is
       mounted READ ONLY.  Using jfs_fsck to check a file system mounted other than READ ONLY could
       seriously damage the file system!
[...]


EXAMPLES
       Check the 3rd partition on the 2nd hard disk, print extended information to  stdout,  replay
       the  transaction  log,  force  complete jfs_fsck checking, and give permission to repair all
       errors:

              jfs_fsck -v -f /dev/hdb3

       Check the 5th partition on the 1st hard disk, and report, but do not repair, any errors:

              jfs_fsck -n /dev/hda5


And then the JFS (unknown 35 type) partition is mounted as  (note what happens if we do not specify type JFS):
(Below the x represents an partition number)

Huitzilopochtli:/home/jose# mount /dev/sdax    /mnt/sdax
mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sdax,
       missing codepage or helper program, or other error
       In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try
       dmesg | tail  or so

On the other hand, when we specify the type (-t) as jfs:

Huitzilopochtli:/home/jose# mount -t jfs /dev/sdax /mnt/sdax
Huitzilopochtli:/home/jose#

...the JFS partition mounts, after being cleaned.

Hope that helps for another time and/or for others to embrace open source software to fix problems.