Video Screencast Help
Scheduled Maintenance: Symantec Connect is scheduled to be down Saturday, April 19 from 10am to 2pm Pacific Standard Time (GMT: 5pm to 9pm) for server migration and upgrades.
Please accept our apologies in advance for any inconvenience this might cause.

Base owner priority question

Created: 29 Oct 2009 • Updated: 29 Jul 2010 | 13 comments
jz81's picture

I have a layer with file system priority of 70. In this layer I have a file: C:\test.txt (which contains the following text: "layer").
In the base, I have a file: C:\test.txt (which contains the following text: "base").
When I start winword.exe (from the base, this application hasn't been virtualized) and open C:\test.txt ... I get the file which contains "layer".
However I thought because winword was running from the base, the base's files would have a "BASE OWNER" priority (i.e. 65.5).
Why is winword opening the file in the layer?
 

Comments 13 CommentsJump to latest comment

EdT's picture

If you consult the documentation, from the perspective of an application running in the base, resources in the base have a priority of 75.5
However, I agree that there appears to be ambiguity between the definition of an app running in the base, and an app running outside a layer (which has a priority of 65.5) - presumably this refers to an app running in another layer.

Ideally, the manual should clarify the precise definition of running "outside a layer" so that there is no ambiguity about whether running in the base falls into this description or not.

Try changing your layer from 70 to 75.6 and see if you then get the functionality you are expecting.

If your issue has been solved, please use the "Mark as Solution" link on the most relevant thread.

jz81's picture

In delving deeper Jared Payne elaborates on layer prioritization (because the SVS white paper isn't clear):

Here are the definitions of Base owner and Base

Base owner: Priorities of bases's files from the perspective of an application running the base: 65.5
Base: Priorities of the base's files from the perspective of an application running in an application layer: 75.5

I see no ambiguity here and it makes sense to me. However the program just doesn't behave this way.
test.txt in the base should have in the scenario described priority 65.5.
Is this a bug or are the definitions in Jared's article wrong?
 

jz81's picture

For reference purposes:
Used SVS version:

SVSCMD:        2.1.3062
FSLLIB32.DLL:  2.1.3062
FSLX.SYS:      2.1.3062
OFD.DLL:       0.0.0
OFDSRV.DLL:    0.0.0

This could not be reproduced in SWV 6.1.5104.

Jordan's picture

So it works in the newest version but is broken in 2.1?  Am I reading you correct?

If a forum post solves your problem please flag is as the solution

jz81's picture

Yes, it appears to work in the newest version

EdT's picture

Is the documentation consistent and if not, can this be rectified as a priority and included in the QA testing for future releases?

If your issue has been solved, please use the "Mark as Solution" link on the most relevant thread.

Jordan's picture

I was actually talking to a dev about priority the other day, for some other issue, and it does look like the numbers listed for each priority owner in our documentation is incorrect. 

If a forum post solves your problem please flag is as the solution

EdT's picture

Hi Jordan,
Can you get the source file fixed and made available for download from Connect or any other convenient location?
From experience, unless the doc authors are given a regular kick, they never update or correct stuff....;-D

If your issue has been solved, please use the "Mark as Solution" link on the most relevant thread.

Jordan's picture

Ya there's a bug up on it and I can easily post the correct info on Connect because we won't be revising our documentation until the next release.

If a forum post solves your problem please flag is as the solution

achojwa's picture

Hi Jordan, I'm investigating some priority -related issues in our environment and while rummaging trough CONNECT I found this useful post. But I couldn't find where the corrected priority table has been posted/publsihed. Can you help me please?
thank you

Jordan's picture

Umm.  There was never one published anywhere.  I wrote up a bug on it but I didn't want to post anything here until Development had a chance to look at the actual priorities to see if it was the Doc or a bug.

If a forum post solves your problem please flag is as the solution

achojwa's picture

With the new release (6.1Sp4-aka 6.2..) recently published it could be the perfect time to poll Developement for this issue. Any chance for doing this?

erikw's picture

SVS 2.1.3062 is not the best version. If you would be sticking to svs then get yourselve version 3066.
that is a very well developed version without having the priority issue.

Regards Erik www.DinamiQs.com Dinamiqs is the home of VirtualStorm (www.virtualstorm.org)

*************************************************************
If your issue has been solved, Please mark it as solved
***********