Domino Server

Domino Server - Data Storage and Management 

05 Aug 2013Tinus Riyanto2825Archive Policy allows archive server to be defined based on home mail server

Agree that this would be useful as we recently found out.

I would even further suggest that several mail server can share an archive server since if you have more than ten if would not seem likely that you would add another ten or so archive servers, right ?
22 Aug 2012Stephen Bailey1802One DAOS store for many domino servers

i see the logic of the idea, but this would only make Lotus Notes data run even more slowly.
22 Aug 2012Bill Malchisky12192One DAOS store for many domino servers

Well, using the logic of current development, the single DAOS option would need to be atomic. That means the back-end would then need to be a clustered DB2 store, which would cause clients to re-architect their entire Domino infrastructure. Do not see this happening. Though interesting, that would create a lot of excessive LAN traffic as well, causing further delays, over looking at local storage for the file (physical or virtual).
20 Jul 2012Anders ├…slund549One DAOS store for many domino servers

I like the idea but do not know if I should Promote or not. It is definitely a super interesting idea, but my guess it is difficult to implement it and I would be scared myself if the companys only daos-store got corrupted or anything like that. Imagine one server in the cluster go mad and delete attachements that is forever lost and then trying to restore this from old backups.

28 Jun 2012Vlad Sh10679One DAOS store for many domino servers

Let me explain why I'm against it.
If you use direct access to the servers to the same store, this is a long time (large files pulled from the current server and so not fast). This will lead to difficulties in the network.
If you have in mind their own store on each server, they can not be identical, because servers have different access to the documents, that is some of the documents (and their attachments) can not be replicated.
Your idea is contrary to the principles of Lotus Domino.
03 Apr 2012Nick Radov1404Fix database time creep problem with new UNID algorithm

@Ivan Tsybanenko: Your suggestion wouldn't work because it wouldn't ensure that UNIDs remained unique in a database. Specifically it wouldn't properly handle two documents created within the same clock tick.
03 Apr 2012Ivan Tsybanenko91Fix database time creep problem with new UNID algorithm

The problem to simple resolve this problem with algorithm changing is storing @Created data directly in UNID. If you change UNID programmatically (you can do it by NotesDocument.UniversalID = "NewUNID") you change documant creation time simultaneously.
24 Oct 2011Gregory Engels1706Full-Text redirection to a dedicated server

@Uwe: no, the 8.5.3 solution is not solving this idea here. It is solving the one linked above, since its let you now redirect the FT of all indexed databases on a single server to a dedicated volume.

What I am talking about, is redirecting it to a dedicated FT Server (or cluster) for a single database - so for example you could have 15 servers hosting the same replica of a database, but only one server that is actually mantaining the FT, and all FT Requests from clients would redirect to this specific server.

So, it is not obsolete at all :-)
24 Oct 2011Uwe Brahm604Full-Text redirection to a dedicated server

Obsolete now:
This feature is now included in 8.5.3 :-)

Variable is:

24 Oct 2011Uwe Brahm604Redirect Full Text Index to a dedicated path or volume

Obsolete now: included in 8.5.3 :-)

Variable is:

18 Oct 2011John Curtis10Setting to block replication of a replica if it has not replicated within the purge interval

For the record, this is a different problem than PIRC addresses (and which has been brought up at Lotusphere and all manner of contact forever). The idea here would effectively break normal replication (change a document - updating its modified time - and it gets replicated). The problem PIRC addresses involves the case where there are NO changes but documents present in a restored replica (say) that no longer have deletion stubs to keep them out of another replica.

There are easily as many people who would want new changes to replicate - period - as those who want them to be governed by some date rule.

So "they missed the mark" - don't think so. Not per all the feedback we've gathered.

This is a different mark and one you should champion if you think it's commonplace and important. We can certainly implement it also .. doesn't sound too hard.

John Curtis - IBM Senior Technical Staff Member, Domino Development
17 Oct 2011David Hablewitz15116Setting to block replication of a replica if it has not replicated within the purge interval

Yep. Looks like they missed the mark here. It should block ALL replication if no replication has occurred within the purge interval. Call IBM support and let them know.

Here is how the feature is described in the "What's new in 8.5.3":
A new replication option, Enable Purge Interval Replication Control, on the Space Savers tab, prevents older deletion stubs and document modifications from replicating to an application.

17 Oct 2011David Hablewitz15116Setting to block replication of a replica if it has not replicated within the purge interval

I have not yet had a chance to explore it. But the nice thing is if it doesn't work as intended, then you can now file an SPR and it will be addressed as a bug rather than a feature enhancement.
17 Oct 2011Kent Kurchak19Setting to block replication of a replica if it has not replicated within the purge interval

New 8.5.3 PIRC (purge interval replication control) does NOT fix the problem as does this idea! Or should I say PIRC is easily foiled.

As I understand it, PIRC uses the database cutoff date and won't accept any notes (including deletion stubs) with a modified date (?) older than the cutoff date. So far so good.

But let's say I have an old replica of a database that has not been replicated a really long time with the server replica (more days than the purge date). I have even forgotten that it is a replica of something "real" on the server". I play around a bit...edit a document, which updates its modified date. Just so happens I do that today, right before I finally replicate with the server. Or I run an agent that modifies any field on a number of documents, resetting their modified dates. But as you guessed, some of these same documents had been deleted on the server copy and enough time has passed such that their deletion stubs were purged.

Because I did my edits/agent after the purge date, the server will accept my changes even with PIRC enabled. Documents that were deleted in the server copy will be readded from my replica. Right? So having PIRC enabled didn't really help.

This all assumes of course that I am the Author of the docs or am Editor+ in the server database and no replication settings are blocking my updates.

For sake of argument the edits I made were things that should not be added back to the server replica. So the normal, usually good behavior in which edits supercede a deletion, doesn't apply here.

I agree with this idea, to first check the replication history of the sending database and if the last replication was older than the target server database cutoff date not allow replication. And also not allow replication if the sending database history has been cleared. This would disqualify the sending database completely. Then have some admin override capability to allow replication and reset the history. Then do the PIRC test on document level.
04 Aug 2011Kenneth Axi2537Two-stage Recycle Bin

This is not a good idea; If the only reason for having two recycle bins is for retreiving deleted mails - then do a restore of the mailfile from the backup-system!
08 Apr 2011Marius Jaeger2466Two-stage Recycle Bin

When a user deletes a document in his own mail database, the document stay in the trash folder.

I want, when the document is deleted from the trash folder, it should be copied into a database where it can be restored.

There is no need for a Windows recycle bin.
06 Apr 2011Bill Malchisky12192Two-stage Recycle Bin

Mark and I engaged in detailed dialog on his provided link in @4 No need to rehash that here. :)

@0 Know that only Domino for Windows has a recycle bin. The trend on Notes and Domino is to make the feature sets similar as much as possible and as of 8.0.2, Lotus has made great strides to consistently achieve that with each new release -- excepting a few small cases. I feel this feature would create an exception based design feature set and pull away from that model. Demoting as such.
01 Apr 2011Mark Demicoli10736Two-stage Recycle Bin

Similar, plus quite some discussion -> { Link }
31 Mar 2011Nikolay Yushmanov2406Two-stage Recycle Bin

I suppose, in that case the second recycle bin will quickly be overflowed with the mails deleted by users. Additional configuration option is needed for selecting databases used two-stage Recycle Bin.
30 Mar 2011Marius Jaeger2466Two-stage Recycle Bin

Thanks for the link.

But its not what i want. I want a two-stage recycle bin for every database where the soft deletions is enabled without any coding.


Welcome to IdeaJam

You can run IdeaJam™ in your company. It's easy to install, setup and customize. Your employees, partners and customers will immediately see results.

Use IdeaJam to:

  • Collect ideas from employees
  • Solicit feedback and suggestions from employees and customers
  • Run innovation contests and competitions
  • Validate concepts
  • Use the power of "crowd-sourcing" to rank ideas and allow the best ideas to rise to the top

IdeaJam™ works with:

  • IBM Connections
  • IBM Lotus Quickr
  • Blogs and Wikis
  • Websphere Portal
  • Microsoft Sharepoint
  • and other applications.

IdeaJam has an extensive set of widgets and API's that allow you to extend and integrate IdeaJam™ with other applications.

Learn more about IdeaJam >>

IdeaJam developed by

Elguji Software Logo