OK, "but" if in deleting the Slot 5 statement and then tidying up by
renumbering the subsequent slot statements so that there are no gaps in
the slot numbers and if one of the later slots, Slot 6 for example, was
a spool volume, then it would be in a different relative number,
wouldn't it? After tidying up, the old Slot 6 would be the new Slot 5.
That used to be bad before the cpowned volumes were numbered in SYSTEM
CONFIG. Of course, sometimes my memory gets mixed up with really old
things vs. just old things.
Jim
Richard Corak wrote:
Not exactly. Changing the contents of the CP_OWNED statement, including
deletion, affects only that statement. But that's not as simple as it
might appear.
Spool files can span CP_OWNED volumes, so if CP needs to fetch the next
record for the spool file by going to the volume at slot 'n', and there
isn't a slot 'n', or it's a different volume so the needed record isn't
there, you lose the spool file.
Deleting the statement for slot 'n' doesn't automatically affect any
other CP_OWNED volume, but can affect all your spool files, and could
mean that you have no object directory.
Richard Corak
A word of caution, however. Don't just delete that line in the CP-Owned
list in SYSTEM CONFIG, especially if there is a volume later in the list
that contains SPOOL space. You would lose all the spool files in the
later volume. Just change the volid in that slot in the CP-Owned list
to Reserved, rather than removing the slot.
--
Jim Bohnsack
Cornell University
(972) 596-6377 home/office
(972) 342-5823 cell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
