Hi Alain, Actually, in this case, I really don't really feel like going back in time :-)
In reality, it would need to be a real crisis for me to get authorization to use a LPAR to IPL z/VM 4.4.0. I'm just happy for you that you should finally have this problem resolved when you are up and running z/VM 5.3 in production! JR JR (Steven) Imler CA Senior Software Engineer Tel: +1 703 708 3479 Fax: +1 703 708 3267 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alain Benveniste > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 12:12 PM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: Question about virtual tape in a zVM environment > > Jr, > > If you are interested in, I can send you a copy of our z/VM440. > > Regards > Alain > > > Le 4/04/08 3:26, « Imler, Steven J » <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > > > Hmmm ... Les, Alain did say z/VM FOUR.FOUR ... it's for > sure there are > > likely CP changes (DIAG 254 "things" come to mind) that might effect > > this behavior in some way ... again keeping in mind his > HOST is running > > z/VM 4.4.0 (except for the test when everything WORKED! [when he had > > z/VM 5.3 running 1st level in addition to his test guest system]). > > > > In any case, I have no way to go back to prove this ... all > our hosts > > are z/VM 5.3 and we generally are running the GA release of > z/VM at GA > > for all our hosts. So it's been a LONG time since we've had z/VM > > 4.anything as "top dog". > > > > JR > > > > JR (Steven) Imler > > CA > > Senior Software Engineer > > Tel: +1 703 708 3479 > > Fax: +1 703 708 3267 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Les Geer > (607-429-3580) > >> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 08:42 PM > >> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > >> Subject: Re: Question about virtual tape in a zVM environment > >> > >>> Les and JR, > >>> > >>> Firstly : > >>> Thanks to gave me the info 'PMH 84921,004,000'. I asked our > >> hardware to l > >>> > >>> ook > >>> at this. I don't have a feedback yet. > >>> > >>> Secondly : > >>> I was able to IPL our z/VM530 today and ... > >>> - from z/VM440, I ipled z/VM530 2nd lvl and did a test about > >> the target : > >>> > >>> > >>> nothing changed. Problem still alive :( > >>> > >>> - I ipled z/VM530 1st lvl and did a test, then did it again > >> and again to > >>> > >>> be > >>> absolutely sure. I washed my glasses and yes our problem > >> disappeared. NO > >>> MORE PROBLEM !!! > >>> > >>> So it was not a hardware problem. Glad to see this has been > >> corrected in > >>> > >>> the > >>> z/VM version. > >>> > >> > >> There isn't anything in a newer release of z/VM that would > change the > >> behavior of this problem. It really is a hardware problem. > >> This problem only occurs when you use VOLSPECIFIC as a target > >> category on a mount request. > >> > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> Les Geer > >> IBM z/VM and Linux Development > >> > >> > > > >
