Alan,
ok, your objection is principally correct, but first the message you
mentioned appears always also when you restore a cylinder range from a
530RES DDR DUMP to a correctly defined minidisk with RESTORE xxx TO yyy
REORDER 0. So this message ist not necessarily a problem. In fact it
appears very often and if you restore multiple DASDs or mdisks I'm sure
everyone will enter the PROMPT OFF and put the necessary commands in a
DDR PARM file. But the main reason why I think that DDR should abend or
at least give a return code other than zero is, that when you RESTORE
ALL to a minidisk which is too small, the only result can be garbage. If
the user wants in fact only a cylinder range to be restored he should
enter RESTORE xxx TO yyy REORDER z. But also this cylinder range must be
available on the output device.
kind regards
Franz Josef Pohlen
Alan Altmark schrieb:
On Monday, 04/14/2008 at 01:58 EDT, Franz Josef Pohlen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I have found ou a curious behaviour with DDR Restore. If had the
following situation. I have backed up a VSE volume with DUMP ALL. At the
test recovery site I have restored it with RESTORE ALL. I thought all
mdisks started at physical cylinder 1 so I defined the mdisk accordingly
in the USER DIRECT, but this volume was historically a fullpack minidisk
at the original site. I would have expected that the restore will abend
with the last cylinder not being written, but DDR told me that cylinder
0 to 3337 was restored and dump ended with RC=0. The only thing which
you could see was the message that source device is larger than input
device, but this message appears also if you restore a 50 cyl cms mdisk
from a 530RES DDR dump with RESTORE xxx TO yyy to a correctly defined 50
cyl. mdisk. So this cannot be seen as an error message.
It's not an error since you explicitly give permission by saying "YES" or
by using PROMPTS OFF. And if you offset the restore after of the original
dump point, then the source is definitely larger than the target.
I have tested it
for demonstration with a dump of a 5 cyl mdisk and restored it with
RESTORE ALL to a 4 cyl mdisk. My problem is that the customer has no
support contract with IBM. I would say this is a defect and want to open
a PMR on it, but my customer is surely not willing to pay for that if
IBM says that's no defect for whatever reason.
There is no defect. DDR is doing exactly what you told it to do. I call
your console log to the witness stand:
HCPDDR725D SOURCE DASD DEVICE WAS (IS) LARGER THAN OUTPUT DEVICE
DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE? RESPOND YES OR NO:
yes
The defense rests.
Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott
