You have nailed it Ivan. IDCAMS in VSE write a special block so when IDCAMS is restoring the data, it knows there is another tape. Please don't shoot the messenger. Favor has the same problem as IDCAMS. Doctor D works at EOT. _____________________ Jim Hughes x5586 "It is fun to do the impossible." Quote from Walt Disney
________________________________ From: The IBM z/VM Operating System on behalf of Ivan Warren Sent: Wed 6/17/2009 4:56 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Trace I/O for a 3490 tape drive Alan Altmark wrote: > According to the 3490 Hardware Reference, Error Recovery Action code 38 > (physical EOT) specifically raises an Equipment Check. Intervention > Required can be turned on, too, if the problem is not corrected before the > CU presents status to the channel (and I don't know how you "recover" from > EOT). > > Well.. What's odd then would be that VTAPE would present a Physical EOT before having presented a Logical EOT (which is presented by a Unit Exception in the SCSW Device Status on write ops). Otherwise, that would mean that VTAPE isn't emulating the Logical EOT *OR* the virtual tape distance between its Logical EOT and Physical EOT distance is too short - and that within that write, it encountered both Logical and Physical EOTs. Getting passed the logical EOT doesn't end ongoing writes. But any write issued AFTER the logical EOT has passed will incur a UX - this gives the opportunity for any tape writing software to write end of volume information passed the Logical EOT. If writing End Of Volume information (because of a Logical EOT) makes VTAPE run into the Physical EOT then this would happen too. PS : It's "theorically" possible to correct the problem before the CU presents the status to the channel.. If the channel is exceptionally busy and you run VERY fast to your drive, manually rewind it and make it ready again before the CU has had the opportunity to present the status because of an ongoing long standing working allegiance condition from another CU on that channel... Oh well.. I *DID* say it was theorical ! --Ivan
