I do not believe that this is the problem. I was giving you information on the failing job that I am most familiar with. Other jobs that fail are submitted to VMBatch by the ID that also owns the SFS directories. FYI, "VMBatch" is the IBM VM Batch Facility Version 2.2, I was not aware until recently that there are other products also known as "VMBatch". If this has caused confusion, I apologize. Nora Graves nora.e.gra...@irs.gov Main IRS, Room 6531 (202) 622-6735 Fax (202) 622-3123 SE:W:CAR:MP:D:KS:BRSI
________________________________ From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of John Hall Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 10:04 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: SFS problem If I recall correctly, DIAG D4 is the one that manipulates the secondary ID, aka "Alternate ID". (SECUSER is an old term). Diag 88 provides the ability to link minidisks and perform userid/password validations (if the issuer has appropriate authority). An interesting usage note for this is that DIAG D4 does not change the userid associated with any existing (already active) SFS connections. This is because it is a CP function and manipulates the VMDBK. Once set, future connections (via APPC/VM Connect) will utilize the Alternate ID. ... This is why severing all connections prior to setting the AltID will "fix" this type of problem, because CMS will (re) connect and use the AltID. If this is Nora's problem, an easy work around would be wrap the job with an exec that uses DMSGETWU and DMSPUSWU to set a new default work unit that contains the appropriate user, then run the job from the exec, then finally reset with DMSPOPWU. (If I'm remembering all of this correctly) John -- John Hall Safe Software, Inc. 727-608-8799 johnh...@safesoftware.com On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Schuh, Richard <rsc...@visa.com> wrote: Isn't that DIAG 88, instead of SECUSER? Regards, Richard Schuh ________________________________ From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of John Hall Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 6:41 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: SFS problem Nora, Batch jobs normally run with the privileges of the "owner" of the job, using the SECUSER facility in z/VM. With SFS, this can lead to unexpected results when a prior batch job leaves the worker with a connection to the filepool under a different user's id. If the job ordering/selection of batch workers is somewhat random, you could see the outcome that you're experiencing (sometimes it works, sometimes it fails).
