We are in the process of eliminating old pools of tapes.
The application owner and the tech support for the silos uncataloged the
datasets and changed the Expdt to the current date expecting the nightly TMS
functions to flip the scratch bit for each of these tapes.
I thought I could delete the p
"O'Brien, David W. [C] , NIH/CIT" wrote in
message
news:...
> We are in the process of eliminating old pools of tapes.
> The application owner and the tech support for the silos uncataloged
the datasets and changed the Expdt to the current date expecting the
nightly TMS functions to flip the sc
David,
>We are in the process of eliminating old pools of tapes.
>The application owner and the tech support for the silos uncataloged the
>>datasets and changed the Expdt to the current date expecting the nightly TMS
>>functions to flip the scratch bit for each of these tapes.
>
>I thought I co
n
NIH Contractor
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Vernooij, CP - SPLXM [kees.vern...@klm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:33 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Forcing TMS Tape entry into scratch status
&qu
ergys.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:38 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Forcing TMS Tape entry into scratch status
David,
>We are in the process of eliminating old pools of tapes.
>The application owner and the tech support for the silos uncataloged the
>>datasets a
David,
>From the inquiry, it looks like all of the chaining is missing or has been
>removed. The only option that I can suggest is to turn on the scratch bit with
>tmsupdate.
VOL 200041
VER DSN=NIH.NEUMICS.PPT.MBACKUP.CHECKPT.G0059V00
OI FLAG1=04
Regards,
John
513-723-7527
john.king...@con
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:04:32 -0400, O'Brien, David W. (NIH/CIT) [C]
wrote:
>John and Jay,
>
> Thanks for responding, no EDM is not involved nor do we use 'out of area'
codes. Our off-site tapes are written to a remote silo so there is no need
for tape movement.
>
>Volseq is not equal to 001 and
Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:23 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Forcing TMS Tape entry into scratch status
David,
>From the inquiry, it looks like all of the chaining is missing or has been
>removed. The only option that I can suggest is to turn on the scratch bit with
>tmsupdate.
ic
Subject: Re: Forcing TMS Tape entry into scratch status
John and Jay,
Thanks for responding, no EDM is not involved nor do we use 'out of area'
codes. Our off-site tapes are written to a remote silo so there is no need for
tape movement.
Volseq is not equal to 001 and the dataset
oney [linda.lst...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:19 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Forcing TMS Tape entry into scratch status
Hi David,
It is likely that the inital update(s) happened with NOCHAIN in use, otherwise
a scratch operation should have failed for anything o
nesday, September 16, 2009 10:33 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Forcing TMS Tape entry into scratch status
>
> "O'Brien, David W. [C] , NIH/CIT" wrote in
> message
> news:...
> > We are in the process of eliminating old pools of tapes.
> > The a
Hi,
Have noticed a few of HSM duplexed tapes becoming orphan. These have a
permanent retention to them. So, they are neither being controlled by HSM to
DELVOL and get the tape returned to CA-1 control...neither CA-1 is getting the
control as it has the EDMID ON to point to HSM and FLAG3 to 20 f
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:56:13 +0530, Prabhath V Gannavarapu
wrote:
>Hi,
Have noticed a few of HSM duplexed tapes becoming orphan. These have a
permanent retention to them. So, they are neither being controlled by HSM to
DELVOL and get the tape returned to CA-1 control...neither CA-1 is getting
13 matches
Mail list logo
