IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu> wrote on 04/07/2010 05:01:22 AM:
> Would this be a good candidate for an apar? I mean, I am willing to open an > ETR because I think this is just wrong behaviour, but I am NOT > willing to deal > with incompetent level1/2 that don't get the problem until way after I have > lost the last shred of patience. (Can you say 'broken as designed' - > heard that > too often.) I am hoping for a statement from Kevin. (Blatant hint.) I am already out on a limb here pretending to know something about IOS. I had better let CONSOLE speak for themselves. > > So the when there are no paths to the console, the IOSB remains > >queued to the UCB until the no paths condition gets resolved. > And all other SSCHs queued behind it? That would explain what I saw - when > the first problem hits while the IO is already started, no one gets notified. > When no IO is active, Console properly deactivates the affected console. No > further problem. CONSOLE is the only user of the console device, so there is only one queued IOSB. The rest of the WTO buffers are queued to the console via CONSOLE data structures, not IOS data structures. CONSOLE would do another EXCP to write another screen of data after the hung EXCP completes. I think you may have things backwards. When OSA problem happened while no I/O is active, you have the next request getting hung with no paths. When the problem happened while a request was active, you got a Channel-control check (**04 in the IOS050I message), which does get posted back as an error on the EXCP request, so the console was deactivated in that case. Jim Mulder z/OS System Test IBM Corp. Poughkeepsie, NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
