AnsweredAssumed Answered

How to prevent registered non-unique files from system cleanup prior to retention period?

Question asked by Mike_Taylor_536 on Aug 27, 2014
Latest reply on Aug 28, 2014 by Pete Wirfs
We are using Application Manager V8.0.

Problem:
Have fought the issue of registered files that are not named uniquely from getting cleaned up the very next day despite having a retention period of 14 days.

Example: 

The job, TEST_CREATE_FILE, runs daily and creates the following file each day on 08/26/2014:
  • /mydir/mysub/my_test_file.txt
The very next day (08/27/2014), this file is deleted by the Application Manager system cleanup process despite having a file retention period of 14 days.

Viewing the table, SO_PRINT_LOG, there are 14 entries for this file.
  • the file created on 08/26/2014 with a SO_DELETE_DATE of 09/09/2014.
  • also see the earliest entry of 08/13/2014 with a SO_DELETE_DATE of 08/27/2014.
Based on this, we are assuming there was an entry in the SO_PRINT_LOG with a create date of 08/12/2014 and a SO_DELETE_DATE of 08/26/2014.  But, when the system cleanup ran today (08/27/2014), it removed the file itself along with the 08/26/2014 entry in the SO_PRINT_LOG table.  And when we create the file again tonight it will be removed the next day because of the  08/13/2014 entry in SO_PRINT_LOG that has a SO_DELETE_DATE of 08/27/2014.

Wondering if anyone else has been able to address the real issue of getting Application Manager to cleanup files only when their retention date is met?

Of course, we have dealt with the effect of this issue by adding jobids to make the filename unique. But, just wondered if anyone has been able to address the real issue?

We are kicking around building a daily process that would cleanup the SO_PRINT_LOG table of all but the most recent SO_DELETE_DATE for those rows who have more than 1 entry for a given SO_FULL_PATHNAME.  This way, the latest SO_DELETE_DATE would be honored by the cleanup process.

Does anyone see any issues with doing this?  Is there a better way to handle this problem?

Also, have future versions corrected this issue such as One Automation?  Thanks for everyone's help.

Outcomes