Conference noted::pwv50ift

4271.0. "autoshare issues in 5.0e eco1" by KAOFS::M_VALLEE (csc hull canada) Tue Apr 22 1997 17:42

Hi:

        PATHWORKS for OpenVMS (LANman) v5.0E ECO 1 does not correctly
        support OpenVMS Devices within the LANMAN.INI file for autoshare
        definitions.

        The following definitions within LANMAN.INI:

  autoshare=dsa2=disk2,dsa3=disk3,dsa5=disk5,dsa6=disk6,dsa9=disk9,dsa11=disk11
  noautoshare = dad,dfs,nfs,dsa0,dsa1,dsa4,dsa7,dsa8,dsa10,dsa12,dsa200,
        dsa300,$99$DUA,$203$dk,$204$dk

        create the following error in the PWRK$LMSRV_xxxx.LOG file:

                Autoshare Error: No VOLTAB entry found for DSA11
                Error: invalid device spec <DSA11> in AUTOSHARE string.

        All of DSA0, DSA1, DSA10 and DSA11 are mounted and available to the
        cluster:

(BCSC1) sh dev dsa0

Device                  Device           Error    Volume         Free  Trans Mnt
 Name                   Status           Count     Label        Blocks Count Cnt
DSA0:                   Mounted              0  VAXSYS_B        649542   752   3
$99$DUA0:     (HSC001)  ShadowSetMember      0  (member of DSA0:)
$99$DUA20:    (HSC001)  ShadowSetMember      0  (member of DSA0:)
(BCSC1) sh dev dsa1

Device                  Device           Error    Volume         Free  Trans Mnt
 Name                   Status           Count     Label        Blocks Count Cnt
DSA1:                   Mounted              0  SHADOW_1       1720515     2   3
$99$DUA1:     (HSC001)  ShadowSetMember      0  (member of DSA1:)
$99$DUA21:    (HSC001)  ShadowSetMember      0  (member of DSA1:)
(BCSC1) sh dev dsa10

Device                  Device           Error    Volume         Free  Trans Mnt
 Name                   Status           Count     Label        Blocks Count Cnt
DSA10:                  Mounted              0  SHADOW_10       592572    14   3
$99$DUA10:    (HSC002)  ShadowSetMember      0  (member of DSA10:)
$99$DUA30:    (HSC002)  ShadowSetMember      0  (member of DSA10:)
(BCSC1) sh dev dsa11

Device                  Device           Error    Volume         Free  Trans Mnt
 Name                   Status           Count     Label        Blocks Count Cnt
DSA11:                  Mounted              0  SHADOW_11       755283    52   3
$99$DUA11:    (HSC002)  ShadowSetMember      0  (member of DSA11:)
$99$DUA31:    (HSC002)  ShadowCopying        0  (member of DSA11:)

        In OpenVMS device usage (eg. DCL Show Device) some parts of the
        device specifications are defaulted to all available devices of the
        specific catagory (d), type (ds) or controller (dsa).  There are
        no defaults based upon the numberic value (DSAnnn) as shown in the
        above commands where Show Device DSA1 doesn't show DSA10 or DSA11.

        The interpretation of the LANMAN.INI file is in error for OpenVMS
        devices since using noautoshare=dsa1 means device dsa11 can not be
        used for a share.  This also will cause us problems with dsa12-dsa19
        and dsa100 through dsa199; similarly dsa200-dsa255.

Appears that you have an issue with the design, not the implementation.
The server admin guide says:

	1 - Noautoshare takes precedence

	2 - Any device containing the _string_ is considered a
	match for noautoshare.

Lew

    
    And, almost sure, if you include the colon : in the device name
    specified in the noautoshare line, it invalidates any wildcarding 
    of that name.  That is noautoshare=dsa1: will noautoshare dsa1 only
    (not dsa1*).  
    
    Frankly, though the release notes say this autoshare/noautoshare
    stuff must be done for shadow sets, I don't understand why.  So I'll
    go out on a limb here and ask.  Since only the DSA devices are
    "MOUNTED" and have a volume label (that is, the physical members have
    neither a "MOUNTED" status nor a volume label), how could the physical
    members possibly be autoshared?  Wouldn't the server simply see each
    DSA device that is mounted, check its label and, if 10 characters or
    less, autoshare it?  Can't see how you'd get yourself in trouble.  
    
    On the other hand, I can and have seen folks get themselves in trouble
    when using bound volume sets because the physical volumes _are_ MOUNTED
    and _do_ have volume labels.  This is now also documented in the
    release notes.
    
    FWIW,
    
    Paul