Here are some of the file system and storage related patches I have been struggling with this past year:
IJ19600: SYSTEM CRASH WITH INTERRUPT STACK OVERFLOW WHILE DOING JFS2 IO APPLIES TO AIX 7200-03
IJ24067: HANG IN DISK DRIVER IF LUN IS UN-MAPPED AND OPEN ATTEMPTED APPLIES TO AIX 7200-04
IJ25122: IN RARE CASE FSCK MAY COMPLETE AND LEAVE THE METADATA CORRUPT APPLIES TO AIX 7200-04
IJ25150: JFS2 DEFRAGFS -F <MNTPT> CMD MAY PUT FILE SYSTEM IN READ-ONLY APPLIES TO AIX 7200-04
IJ25245: DEFRAGFS -F CAN CRASH IN DBBACKSPLIT WHEN BLOCKMAP IS CORRUPT APPLIES TO AIX 7200-04
IJ29204: UNCONFIG OF NON-MPIO DISKS CAN RESULT IN CRASH.
IJ30149: AIX CRASH AFTER USING IOO TO CHANGE DK_CLOSED_PATH_RECOVERY
It is not always easy getting the latest patches from IBM. I often have to wait while IBM tests multi-fixes for the current (n) and recent (n-1) supported levels of each AIX TL, even when there are official single fixes for known defects. One would think a company leading their marketing for their operating system with "For over three decades, our customers have trusted AIX to run their most mission critical applications", would at least keep a rolling patch set with patches for all for known defects with validated patches. I should not have to beg for security fixes affecting Confidentiality, Integrity, or Availability; especially when I repeatedly send system crash dumps and provide detailed problem reports.
I also find it puzzling that IBM obscures defect tracking for customers by providing randomly numbered tracking numbers for each version level of their product even when the same defect is in multiple versions of AIX. I don't know how much time I waste trying to cross reference which APAR numbers apply to which releases and which releases are affected by a defect and which releases have which fixes, and which patches (ifixes or filesets) are missing which previously patched defects. I don't care if a fix is delivered as an i-fix (emgr) or fileset (installp) or RPM or other package management format, but I do need to know it has some level of validation for fixes of defects that have impacted me or are likely to impact me. A single tracking number for each defect for all versions would be greatly appreciated by customers and would provide higher safety levels for customers using AIX for mission critical applications for which it is intended.
(I have discussed this with way too many IBM "quality" managers and IBM "escalation" managers.)
------------------------------
Edward Davignon
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: Wed June 23, 2021 03:57 PM
From: Cesar Daniel Delgado Ponce
Subject: Shrinking JFS2 file sytem
Hi
There's nothing 100% safe in computing. It's better to use 90% and let 10% for our old friend Murphy.
About shrinking jfs2 file system it's going to work as far as there's enough free space not only for data as for jfs2 log device (external or internal).
As always best practices is to keep our AIX systems with latest updates availables just in case.
HTH
César Daniel Delgado Ponce.
Sistemas Operativos Seguridad Distribuidos (6181)
+58 212 503 0619
Twitter:@MercantilBanco
YouTube: Mercantil Banco
Original Message:
Sent: 6/23/2021 1:11:00 PM
From: Jakub Pacowski
Subject: Shrinking JFS2 file sytem
Hi all,
shrinking jfs2 file system has been quite a long with us (AIX 6.1 as far as I remember) and always works fine for me. I haven't encounter any problems regarding corruption of data and haven't heard that someone has. imho it's not possible as chfs just move extents in logical volume and eventually will fail if there is not enough continuous free space, but still my client has concerns. I'm looking for confirmation that it's 100% safe for file system data. Has anyone seen official document/information that confirms it' safe?
Jakub
------------------------------
Jakub Pacowski
------------------------------