--0-2073258395-1096826033=:87555
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Here is the syschunk table and there is no creation date
chknum 1
dbsnum 1
nxchknum 0
chksize 250000
offset 0
nfree 232163
mdsize -1
udsize -1
udfree -1
is_offline 0
is_recovering 0
is_blobchunk 0
is_sbchunk 0
is_inconsistent 0
flags 64
fname /dev/i/0/vol01
mfname
moffset
mis_offline 0
mis_recovering 0
mflags


John Carlson <jwcarlson1@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 15:15:55 -0700 (PDT), DBA INFNORA
wrote:

>
>--0-1359103472-1096668955=:87891
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>Hello gurus,
>
>Does any one know of any sysmaster table that keep track of creation dates of chunks ?
>
>Or is there any other way to find that out other than the online.log because we don't have the older online.logs with us. (Don't ask......its a messsssss)
>
>Thanks.
>
>

Syschunks is the sysmaster table that you'd need, but I'm not sure
that it includes creation date info . .

JWC




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
--0-2073258395-1096826033=:87555
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<DIV>Here is the syschunk table and there is no creation date </DIV>
<DIV>chknum&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1<BR>dbsnum&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1<BR>nxchknum&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;& nbsp;&nbsp; 0<BR>chksize&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&n bsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 250000<BR>offset&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs p;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 0<BR>nfree&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs p;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 232163<BR>mdsize&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs p;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -1<BR>udsize&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -1<BR>udfree&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -1<BR>is_offline&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp ; 0<BR>is_recovering&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 0<BR>is_blobchunk&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 0<BR>is_sbchunk&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp ; 0<BR>is_inconsistent&nbsp; 0<BR>flags&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs p;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
64<BR>fname&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; /dev/i/0/vol01<BR>mfname&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp ;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <BR>moffset&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb sp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <BR>mis_offline&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 0<BR>mis_recovering&nbsp;&nbsp; 0<BR>mflags&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <BR><BR><BR><B><I>John Carlson &lt;jwcarlson1@yahoo.com.invalid&gt;</I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 15:15:55 -0700 (PDT), DBA INFNORA<BR><DBAINFNORA@YAHOO.COM>wrote:<BR><BR>&gt ;<BR>&gt;--0-1359103472-1096668955=:87891<BR>&gt;Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Hello gurus,<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt;Does any one know of any sysmaster table that keep track of creation dates of chunks ?<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt;Or is there any other way to find that out other than the online.log because we don't have the older online.logs with us. (Don't ask......its a messsssss)<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt;Thanks.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt;<BR><BR>Syschunks is the sysmaster table that you'd need, but I'm not sure<BR>that it includes creation date info . .<BR><BR>JWC<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><p>
<hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br><a
href="http://vote.yahoo.com">vote.yahoo.com</a> - Register online to vote today!
--0-2073258395-1096826033=:87555--
sending to informix-list

On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 10:53:53 -0700 (PDT), DBA INFNORA
<dbainfnora@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>--0-2073258395-1096826033=:87555
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>Here is the syschunk table and there is no creation date
>chknum 1
>dbsnum 1
>nxchknum 0
>chksize 250000
>offset 0
>nfree 232163
>mdsize -1
>udsize -1
>udfree -1
>is_offline 0
>is_recovering 0
>is_blobchunk 0
>is_sbchunk 0
>is_inconsistent 0
>flags 64
>fname /dev/i/0/vol01
>mfname
>moffset
>mis_offline 0
>mis_recovering 0
>mflags
>
>

That's what I thought . . . . only recourse is to consider the link
name itself . . . you are using links ??