Hi, Martha: I think it is documented in the "CP Planning and Administration".
Include as many EDEVICE statements as needed; they are optional and can be placed anywhere in the system configuration file. If you specify more than one statement with the real device number, CP uses the last statement. ______________________________________________ Clovis From: Martha McConaghy <u...@vm.marist.edu> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Date: 03/01/2011 15:45 Subject: Curious edev problem Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System <IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU> I ran into a curious problem with edev today. I think its a bug, but I thought I'd run it past the list and see what you all think. We have using edev a lot to define SAN volumes for Linux guests. This past week, we did a big power shutdown of our data center, so all the VM systems got recycled. I found, after one of them came up, that I had an edev device pointing to the wrong LUN. I traced it back to a typo in my system config file. The virtual device was listed in 2 different edev statements in my config file: edev FF0B type fba attr 2107, fcp_dev 100B wwpn 50050763060886AB lun 4012400000000000 , fcp_dev 110B wwpn 50050763061886AB lun 4012400000000000 edev FF0B type fba attr 2107, fcp_dev 100C wwpn 500507630618C6AB lun 4012400C00000000 , fcp_dev 110C wwpn 500507630608C6AB lun 4012400C00000000 When the system came up, I don't recall seeing any error messages, though I might have missed it. What I find strange is that the FF0B device ended up pointing to the 2nd edev definition (lun 4012400C) rather than the first. (The 2nd statement should have been FF0C.) It seems to me that, in this situation, CP should have rejected the 2nd definition and posted an error message rather than just overriding the previous definition with the new one. What do you think? Martha