Jeff Vance <[log in to unmask]> asked:
 
<snip>
 
>This too has been the majority response.  I will show PROGEN as an
accessor.
>Processes that sm_open then file (#2 type of access) are difficult to work
>with.  They have no file number opened, no access method, no sharing mode.
>
>Here is an IMPORTANT consideration: if a process sm_opens a file and does
>not have any file system locks held I cannot detect details about this
accessor!
>That's life.  The # of accessors in the Accessor summary line will count
the
>sm_open access and the '*' flag in formats 1 and 2 will show an sm_open
>access. However I cannot tell you its job/ses id, username, PIN, etc. If
the
>sm_open'er has one or more file system locks held then I can find out who
it
>is.  Also the # of sm_open'ers can change while I am collecting data (the
number
>of normal openers, eg. fopen cannot change).
>
>Here are some conclusions based upon this fact:
>1) Some accessors will go undetected except by count.  This is sort of ok
since
>   they do not have the file locked, but they do have it pseudo opened
>   and thus the file cannot be purged (although you may be able to rm it).
>
>2) The difference between the total # of accessors and the "O:n" count in
>   the Accessor summary line is the # of sm_open'ers (at the time the
sm_open
>   count was grabbed).
>
>3) STORE access can be detected and the Accessor summary line will contain
>   "Storing" to indicate this.  However, I cannot tell you which job/sess
or
>   process is doing the store.  You will have to use :showjob to figure
this
>   out. (Yes, this makes one of my examples wrong.)
>
>4) I cannot distinguish a :listf's sm_open from anyone elses.  Also, for
>   formats -5,-3,1,2,3,4,5 the OPEN lock is held and hence info regarding
>   listf's access can be shown.  The remaining formats do not hold any
locks
>   and thus no info other than a count is available.  (Formats 0 and 6 do
not
>   even sm_open the file and thus are not accessing it at all.)
 
OK.  I suggest that this be documented *VERY, VERY* clearly.
 
>p.s. It has been proposed to show the domain name (or ns nodename) for
remote
>     accesors rather than the dotted IP address.  The reason cited is that
the
>     domain name is much more useful to the system admin than then IP
>     address.  I had two reasons for showing the IP address:
>     1) it is faster to access than the domain name (which, in the worse
case,
>        can require ~ 1 minute),
>     2) it is fixed length and fits in the display.
>     I am interested in your comments on this choice.
 
 
I concur.  If I want address to name translation there's probabyl a utility
I can use -- and there's no utility I suppose I can write a program that
calls gethostbyaddr().
 
 -- Evan
 
 --