Re: [foxboro] Automated SaveAll
- From: "Pat Martens" <foxpat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 22:25:54 +0200
Alex,
Yes, that does make sense.
So if any of the <cmpd>.O, <cpLbug>.O (which I would have forgotten) or the
workfile (for a given control station) has a timestamp which is newer
compared to my latest SaveAll, I should update the SaveAll. (right ?)
Thanks !
Patrick Martens
Total Raffinaderij Nederland N.V.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Johnson, Alex P (IPS)" <alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: [foxboro] Automated SaveAll
The workfile date will tell you when the workfile itself is change, i.e.,
when a block parameter is altered - generally by an UPLOAD or a human with
the ICC, IACC, or ICC Driver Task.
The <cmpd>.O files will tell you when blocks in a compound are added or
deleted.
The <cpLbug>.O file will tell you when compounds are added or deleted.
Does that make sense?
Regards,
Alex Johnson
Invensys Systems, Inc.
10707 Haddington
Houston, TX 77063
+1 713 722 2859 (voice)
+1 713 932 0222 (fax)
+1 713 722 2700 (switchboard)
alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I hope to see you at the Invensys Process System User Group meeting October
3-6 in Houston, TX -
www.invensys.com/usergroup2005
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Pat Martens
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 2:28 PM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [foxboro] Automated SaveAll
Hi,
We have automated the creation of savealls for all our control stations.
The basis for this is the Ron Deen / Marco van der Waal save_all.sh.
This scripts creates 15 incremental back-ups.
I used to compare the timestamp of the checkpoint file (.UC) and the latest
save_all to see if a save_all would be needed but as we also have the auto
checkpoint feature enabled we end up with creating a save_all every day. If
within that 15 days nothing has changed we will have 15 identical
save_all's.
Therefore we recently modified things and now check the timestamp of the
workfile (.wf).
However, today I noticed the save_all was not updated after deleting several
blocks with ICC.
I found that the timestamp of the .wf was not changed, however the timestamp
of the .O files of the compounds concerned was.
Could I be sure to cover all ICC changes by checking the timestamp of the
latest .O file for a given CP or should check both the .wf and/or the .O
file (whichever is newer)?
Any info appreciated,
Patrick Martens
Total Raffinaderij Nederland N.V.
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
Other related posts:
