[ngw] ATTCLIP?

Joe Brugaletta JBrugaletta at braytonlaw.com
Fri Oct 30 22:41:24 UTC 2015


still trying to figure this out.. Novell support wasn't a big help:
 
"So...ATTCLIP..we can Use this option when running Analyze/Fix
Databases for a post office. It removes references to lost or orphaned
attachment files from message databases, which eliminates QuickFinder
indexing errors. Which won't delete offiles"
Do you recommend running that occasionally?
"Yes I do"
okay, then how to clean up orphaned files in OFFILES?
"Through gwcheck you can clean up"
what options need to be set?
and does it need to be run twice?
the first time it flags, second time it deletes?
"Yes, you can do it second if it won't delete"
"Can you select Contents check box and select Misc tab | type
deldupfolders and also Select Result tab and type your e-mail so that
you receive gwcheck"
 
Not sure where we're going with this..


>>> "Joe Brugaletta" <JBrugaletta at braytonlaw.com> 10/30/2015 10:45 AM
>>>
>From documentation: "Attachment File Check: Files that are attached
to
messages are stored under the offiles subfolder in the post office.
When
Mailbox/Library Maintenance performs an attachment file check, it
reads
each attachment file, verifying the file structure. If you skip the
attachment file check, Mailbox/Library Maintenance verifies that the
attachment file exists but it does not process the file in any way."

Gw support being a tad less than helpful on explaining what
ATTCLIP/Forceclean/File Attachment check do.. seems they dont know
either


>>> "Jeffrey D. Sessler" <jeff at scrippscollege.edu> 10/30/2015 10:11 AM
>>>
I’m pretty sure if it finds a file in offiles that has no matching
record, it will remove it. 

We had a situation where a message DB hit the 2GB limit (result of an
IMAP/Android bug), then in turn trigged another bug where blobs were
rapidly duplicated in offiles when the write to the message DB failed
i.e. The process writes the blob before inserting into msg db.

This resulted in millions of orphaned blobs, but the regular GWCheck
cleaned them up once they hit 30 days old.

Jeff 




On 10/30/15, 9:27 AM, "ngw-bounces+jeff=scrippscollege.edu at ngwlist.com
on behalf of Joe Brugaletta"
<ngw-bounces+jeff=scrippscollege.edu at ngwlist.com on behalf of
JBrugaletta at braytonlaw.com> wrote:

>interesting stuff.. would still be nice to see some official word on
ATTCLIP and File Attachment Check. It must exist somewhere :)
> 
>Also, from my experience, if there are orphaned files in OFFILES that
the GW databases dont know about.. then I think they stay there
forever,
dont they? I believe the only REAL way to ensure you have a perfect
OFFILES directory is to move all of the users into a new post office..
whatever is left can be deleted. Been a while though.. 
>
>>>> Graham Marsh <gm at axiom.hk> 10/30/2015 12:57 AM >>>
>Clarification...so perhaps I can put the question another way...if I
do not
>enable the "file attachment check" *and* I don't use any misc
parameters
>such as ATTCLIP, will the orphaned offiles files be removed (even if
it
>takes 2 passes)? Thanks...GM
>
>On 30 October 2015 at 15:56, Graham Marsh <gm at axiom.hk> wrote:
>
>> OK...so perhaps I can put the question another way...if I do not
enable
>> the "file attachment check", will the orphaned offiles files be
removed
>> (even if it takes 2 passes)? Thanks...GM
>>
>> On 30 October 2015 at 15:31, Laura Buckley
<laurabuckley2000 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Graham,
>>>
>>> It is my understanding that the ATTCLIP Misc option does the
identical
>>> thing to putting a tick in the "File attachment check" box.
>>>
>>> My research indicates that two passes of a Content check is
required and
>>> that it is the second one that actually removes the orphaned
files.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Buckley
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Graham Marsh <gm at axiom.hk> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi apologies for jumping in here. Isn't the ATTCLIP for lost as
well as
>>> > orphaned attachment cleanup? Regarding the "lost" case, i.e. if
an
>>> > attachment file (under offiles) has been inadvertently removed,
but the
>>> > original message still exists, the GW client will produce an
error when
>>> > trying to open the attachment; I believe ATTCLIP removes the
attachment
>>> > reference from the message (possibly it does other things too),
but as
>>> far
>>> > as I know it's the only way to "fix" those messages for whom
their
>>> > attachment files have disappeared. Pls correct me if I'm wrong
because I
>>> > haven't thoroughly tested it.
>>> >
>>> > Also regarding the Content Fix both with & without the "File
attachment
>>> > check" option...my understanding is as follows:
>>> >
>>> > 1 - without the attachment check option, Content Fix will verify
that
>>> the
>>> > offiles file exists but does nothing else
>>> > 2 - with the attachment check option, it calculates the checksum
on the
>>> > file to ensure it's valid (this is what takes the long time)
>>> >
>>> > Now to my mind, *both* options should delete orphaned offiles;
it
>>> shouldn't
>>> > be just the 2nd option that purges those redundant files because
the
>>> > checksumming process is very expensive. However, my experience
seems to
>>> > indicate that only the 2nd option actually gets rid of unneeded
offiles
>>> > files and both options should do that (i.e. for option 1, if an
offiles
>>> > file is not referenced by any message, just delete it). Again, I
haven't
>>> > done thorough experiments, so pls correct me if wrong.
>>> >
>>> > Thx
>>> > GM
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 30 October 2015 at 13:40, Laura Buckley
<laurabuckley2000 at gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Hi,
>>> > >
>>> > > Thanks for the information.
>>> > >
>>> > > Just a note about your scheduled maintenance - don't run both
a
>>> Structure
>>> > > and a Content check simultaneously. Remove Structure from your
weekly
>>> > > Content check.
>>> > >
>>> > > Seeing as you have not run the File attachment check in a
while
you
>>> might
>>> > > see a significant amount of disk space reclaimed.  Just note
that this
>>> > > routing takes a long time to run if it has not been run in a
while
>>> and is
>>> > > very intensive on the server.  I'd run it over a weekend.
>>> > >
>>> > > Last year I took over a site where no maintenance had been run
for
>>> > several
>>> > > years (267 users, 400 - 500 GB data store).  The content check
with
>>> the
>>> > > file attachment option took nearly 24 hours to complete and we
>>> reclaimed
>>> > > nearly a third of the disk space if my memory serves me
correctly.  I
>>> now
>>> > > include that in the weekly content check and the routine
completes in
>>> 4
>>> > > hours.
>>> > >
>>> > > Cheers,
>>> > >
>>> > > Buckley
>>> > >
>>> > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Joe Brugaletta <
>>> > > JBrugaletta at braytonlaw.com>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > Hi Laura,
>>> > > > PO is about 600GB ~300 users. I'm hoping to trim the amount
of time
>>> we
>>> > > > keep emails on live system now that we have retention, but
not there
>>> > yet.
>>> > > > It's 2 1/2 years right now, I believe. I keep having to
increase the
>>> > disk
>>> > > > size.. users chewing through it. I don't know the last time
i
did an
>>> > > > Attachment File Check.. looking at the scheduled events:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > We do a Weekly Analyze/Fix (Structure, Index, Content, Fix
Problems
>>> on
>>> > > > User/Message/Document checked)
>>> > > > and a nightly Analyze/Fix (Structure, Index, Fix on
User/Message)
>>> > > > also a weekly Reduce, and weekly audit
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > >>> Laura Buckley <laurabuckley2000 at gmail.com> 10/29/2015
10:07 PM
>>> >>>
>>> > > > Hi,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > As far as I am aware the ATTCLIP Misc option performs the
same
>>> function
>>> > > as
>>> > > > the "Attachment File Check" box ticked when doing a content
check
>>> with
>>> > > > GWCheck.  I do a full content check on my POA's every
weekend
and
>>> > include
>>> > > > this switch (scheduled maintenance).  If you have not been
running
>>> this
>>> > > > sort of scheduled maintenance then you will regain space. 
Perhaps
>>> let
>>> > us
>>> > > > know when you last ran this sort of GWCheck and what size
your Post
>>> > > Office
>>> > > > is, how many users, etc.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Cheers,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Buckley
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Joe Brugaletta <
>>> > > > JBrugaletta at braytonlaw.com>
>>> > > > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > I don't think I've ever ran this gwcheck option.. and
really not
>>> > > finding
>>> > > > > good solid info on what it does/how to use it. My PO is
getting
>>> low
>>> > on
>>> > > > > space, wondering if its worth doing. Any ATTCLIP gurus? GW
2014
>>> sp2
>>> > > here.
>>> > > > > This email message is for the sole use of the intended
>>> recipient(s)
>>> > and
>>> > > > > may contain confidential and privileged information. If
you
have
>>> > > received
>>> > > > > this e-mail in error, any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or
>>> use
>>> > of
>>> > > > this
>>> > > > > communication is prohibited and we request that you
contact
us by
>>> > reply
>>> > > > > email or call us at 415-898-1555, and then destroy all
copies of
>>> our
>>> > > > > original message and any attachments.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > > > ngw mailing list
>>> > > > > ngw at ngwlist.com
>>> > > > > http://ngwlist.com/mailman/listinfo/ngw
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > > ngw mailing list
>>> > > > ngw at ngwlist.com
>>> > > > http://ngwlist.com/mailman/listinfo/ngw
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s)
>>> and
>>> > > > may contain confidential and privileged information. If you
have
>>> > received
>>> > > > this e-mail in error, any disclosure, copying, distribution,
or use
>>> of
>>> > > this
>>> > > > communication is prohibited and we request that you contact
us by
>>> reply
>>> > > > email or call us at 415-898-1555, and then destroy all
copies
of our
>>> > > > original message and any attachments.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > > ngw mailing list
>>> > > > ngw at ngwlist.com
>>> > > > http://ngwlist.com/mailman/listinfo/ngw
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > ngw mailing list
>>> > > ngw at ngwlist.com
>>> > > http://ngwlist.com/mailman/listinfo/ngw
>>> > >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > ngw mailing list
>>> > ngw at ngwlist.com
>>> > http://ngwlist.com/mailman/listinfo/ngw
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ngw mailing list
>>> ngw at ngwlist.com
>>> http://ngwlist.com/mailman/listinfo/ngw
>>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>ngw mailing list
>ngw at ngwlist.com
>http://ngwlist.com/mailman/listinfo/ngw
>
>
>This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you have
received this e-mail in error, any disclosure, copying, distribution,
or
use of this communication is prohibited and we request that you
contact
us by reply email or call us at 415-898-1555, and then destroy all
copies of our original message and any attachments.
_______________________________________________
ngw mailing list
ngw at ngwlist.com
http://ngwlist.com/mailman/listinfo/ngw

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and
may contain confidential and privileged information. If you have
received this e-mail in error, any disclosure, copying, distribution,
or
use of this communication is prohibited and we request that you
contact
us by reply email or call us at 415-898-1555, and then destroy all
copies of our original message and any attachments.

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain confidential and privileged information. If you have
received this e-mail in error, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or
use of this communication is prohibited and we request that you contact
us by reply email or call us at 415-898-1555, and then destroy all
copies of our original message and any attachments.


More information about the ngw mailing list