bar_act.log field descriptions?
Posted in 2011
Topics: Backup & Restore, Platform-Specific Issues, Versions, Editions & End-of-Life
I expect this is obvious and I should know it but: Can anyone tell me where fields 3 & 4 in a bar_act.log entry for backups are defined? We're using IDS 9.30HC5 on HP-UX 11.11 and ISM for backups. e.g., last night's level 0 has this: 2011-01-05 20:19:58 16405 16403 /opt/informix/bin/onbar_d -b -L 0 -w ...so what do the "16405" and "16403" refer to? They're not defined in the BAR guide, they DON'T match a unix pid, Informix sid or ISM saveset id and don't correspond to the "act_aid" column in sysutils.bar_action; and they seem not to be unique, either - we have at least one previous backup with the same numbers, the same goes for other backups and their own numbers in these fields. Waiting to be humbled!
On Jan 6, 3:56 pm, Malc <mal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I expect this is obvious and I should know it but: Can anyone tell me where fields 3 & 4 in a bar_act.log entry for backups are defined?
> We're using IDS 9.30HC5 on HP-UX 11.11 and ISM for backups.
>
> e.g., last night's level 0 has this:
> 2011-01-05 20:19:58 16405 16403 /opt/informix/bin/onbar_d -b -L 0 -w
>
> ...so what do the "16405" and "16403" refer to? They're not defined in the BAR guide, they DON'T match a unix pid, Informix sid or ISM saveset id and don't correspond to the "act_aid" column in sysutils.bar_action; and they seem not to be unique, either - we have at least one previous backup with the same numbers, the same goes for other backups and their own numbers in these fields.
>
> Waiting to be humbled!
It is the pid of the onbar process :
informix 8408 4487 0 16:20:29 ttyp6 0:00 /bin/sh /usr2/support2/
products/ids1150fc8/bin/onbar -b -F
informix 8410 8408 2 16:20:29 ttyp6 0:00 /usr2/support2/
products/ids1150fc8/bin/onbar_d -b -F
2011-01-06 16:20:29 8410 8408 /usr2/support2/products/ids1150fc8/bin/
onbar_d -b -F
2011-01-06 16:20:30 8410 8408 Begin fake backup.
2011-01-06 16:20:30 8410 8408 Completed fake backup.
Duh. As in the only one we didn't think to trap. Ta Jon.