I suspect the developer is being somewhat influenced by the z/OS convention which simply warns you.
But, at the same time, it halts the IPL and also gives you the option to select the appropriate duplicate. z/VM does not have the select option so if IBM insists on retaining the "W" class for the message they might also consider adding a select option which would go a long way to making the z/VM IPL much less error prone. "Schuh, Richard" <rsc...@visa.com> Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System <IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU> 12/27/2010 12:03 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System <IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU> To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Duplicate VOLSERs at IPL Which begs the question, what are the criteria for determining the level of a message? I would think that something that could cause potentially serious system problems, like getting an incorrect CP OWNED volume, would warrant an E. On the other hand, if the duplicated volser is for a volume having only user minidisks, a W might be appropriate as this can be straightened out after the ipl. Even that W is open for debate. If it is something that needs to be fixed before letting the users on the system, an E might be the correct level for the volumes that are merely attached to the system. Regards, Richard Schuh > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Walter > Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 8:18 AM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: Duplicate VOLSERs at IPL > > Just closing the loop on this thread... I did open a Sev 3 > (should have = > > been Sev 4) PMR for this issue on November 20, 2010, pasting > pretty much = > > the same text as posted earler to justify the W-level > ("Warning") message= > > type on this mesesage. The PMR response was received today, > December 27,= > > 2010. > > The response was: > "The developer has decided not to change the message type for > this messag= e." >
