On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Graham C. Knight wrote:
We were told that we needed to use wackz (not wackq, not wacky.. wackz *sigh* the Great UnDocumented, what a confidence builder) from, get this, 5.1.2P2D7. to fix the quotas problem on our one limping filer.
We had the same thing happen here. I gotta say, and this probably sounds a bit stupid - but i wish that NetApp *would* document "wackz" (what's the difference between wacky and wackz anyway?) - and i really wish they'd change the name of the command. I hate telling management that i just ran a command called "wack" on their $250,000 filer. It just makes me feel a bit stupid.
I guess i probably just need to work on my self-esteem ;-)
Anything to help a customers self-esteem. We are in fact changing the name to "WAFL_check". Documentation of some is also being worked on, though it will not be shipped in 5.3. It will be made available to interested parties. We in engineering always resisted changing the name because we really wanted the name to convey that we didn't like anyone ever having to run this tool. High level IT managment at customer sites tends not to enjoy this point, hence the name change. Someone suggested "WAFL_iron", but that would probably get Graham an unscheduled permanent medical leave.
There is one particular area of the code where "wackz" handles something in a less sophisticated and less complex manner than "wacky". We decided that when someone's filer is down is not the time to use needlessly sophisticated and complex code.
John Edwards Wafl guy Network Appliance