A dupkucate volser is not always an error, it can be, the system doesn't know. So a W is right. Better would indeed be an A, and have the operator decide what to do.
2010/12/27 George Henke/NYLIC <george_he...@newyorklife.com> > 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:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU <IBMVM@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." > > > > -- Kris Buelens, IBM Belgium, VM customer support
