(fwd) Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:44:20 -0300, in bit.listserv.ibm-main_dummy Clark Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 24 Apr 2007 04:42:48 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Knutson, Sam) wrote: >I have never IPLed SAD off anything but disk. For the other things you >can IPL from a tape unit like FDR, DFDSS, ZZS

Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

On Apr 25, 2007, at 7:24 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: In a recent note, Ed Gould said: Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:43:21 -0500 There is also the poor design of Tape Labels where you have only 17 positions to store the last 17 characters of 18-44 character long There must be a history be

Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

On 25 Apr 2007 05:24:30 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Gilmartin) wrote: >Is it sufficient explanation that storage used to be expensive? > >But why does the deficiency persist into the 21st century? Change is expensive. That said, a big reason that OS-X has fewer vulnerabilities than Window

Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

On 4/25/2007 8:24 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: Is it sufficient explanation that storage used to be expensive? But why does the deficiency persist into the 21st century? Perhaps because it's difficult to change standards and get everyone to recode their applications, especially across different

Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

>But why does the deficiency persist into the 21st century? Backward compatability? Lack of programming staff? Priority of other issues? - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access

Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 7:24 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Ln tapes mystery > > > In a recent note, Ed Gould said: &

Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

"Paul Gilmartin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... > In a recent note, Ed Gould said: > > > Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:43:21 -0500 > > > > > There is also the poor design of Tape Labels where you have only 17 > > > positions to store the last 17 characters

Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

In a recent note, Ed Gould said: > Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:43:21 -0500 > > > There is also the poor design of Tape Labels where you have only 17 > > positions to store the last 17 characters of 18-44 character long > > There must be a history behind this decision. Can anyone share it?

Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

On Apr 24, 2007, at 4:01 PM, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: --SNIP- There is also the poor design of Tape Labels where you have only 17 positions to store the last 17 characters of 18-44 character long DSNs and also waste 9 of them for GDGs when the G and

Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

At 20:44 -0500 on 04/23/2007, Ed Gould wrote about Re: Ln tapes mystery: I have heard no complaint that the 44-character z/OS limit on data set names is inconveniently large and should be decreased. A long time ago (30+ years) I worked at a bank where the used a *LOT* (read most) of dsns

Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:48:54 -0700, Schwarz, Barry A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Don't your emergency IPL tapes (e.g., SADUMP or DFDSS) need to be >non-labeled? > No. You can hit load 5 times to get past the labels. Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zuric

Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:09 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Ln tapes mystery In a recent note, Ed Gould said: > Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:56:24 -0

Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

(office) 301.986.3574 "Think big, act bold, start simple, grow fast..." -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schwarz, Barry A Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 3:49 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Ln tapes

Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

Don't your emergency IPL tapes (e.g., SADUMP or DFDSS) need to be non-labeled? -Original Message- From: Tim Hare [mailto:snip] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:07 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Ln tapes mystery Is there ever really a reason for using NL tape, these da

Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

On Apr 23, 2007, at 7:08 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: ---SNIP I understand. Let me try to rescue my proposal: Allow the RMS-wary programmer to enter a shorter string as the volser, which the system or application would pad on the righ

Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

In a recent note, Ed Gould said: > Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:56:24 -0500 > > > And, I wish z/OS supported volsers _much_ longer than six characters. ... > > An idea but you might wish to think it through a little bit. Remember > that someone would have to key it in (either on a keyboard

Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

On Apr 23, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: -SNIP And, I wish z/OS supported volsers _much_ longer than six characters. Then a vendor could incorporate a registered trademark in product volsers and let the USPTO moderate conflicts. -- gil G

Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

In a recent note, McKown, John said: > Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:08:51 -0500 > > > > > Not all systems that can write tape that is sent to a mainframe > > (specifically, z/OS) write labels. It may be an application design > > issue, but never-the-less, it happens. > > Like many Windows a

Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thompson, Steve > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:02 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Ln tapes mystery > > > -Original Message- >

Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Hare Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:07 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Ln tapes mystery Is there ever really a reason for using NL tape, these days? I may be wrong, but it seems

Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

Is there ever really a reason for using NL tape, these days? I may be wrong, but it seems to me that most places can deal with IBM SL or ANSI labels. Tim Hare Senior Systems Programmer Florida Department of Transportation (850) 414-4209 -

Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

Radoslaw, and all the curious, Lxxxyy is a system generated volser created by OPEN/EOV when a non- specific request is made with label type NL. In addition, even though you can create a TAPEVOL profile it cannot provide protection because OPEN never calls SAF for LABEL=NL. One of the reaso

Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

Norbert Friemel wrote: On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:57:18 +0200, R.S. wrote: RACF Security Administrator's Guide says: You cannot RACF-protect nonlabeled tapes that have a volume serial number of "Ln". Why ? Just curious Ln is a special serial number (like SCRTCH and PRIVAT) used in mount m

Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:57:18 +0200, R.S. wrote: >RACF Security Administrator's Guide says: >You cannot RACF-protect nonlabeled tapes that have a volume serial >number of "Ln". > >Why ? >Just curious Ln is a special serial number (like SCRTCH and PRIVAT) used in mount messages.

Re: Lnnnnn tapes mystery

In a message dated 4/21/2007 10:57:59 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You cannot RACF-protect nonlabeled tapes that have a volume serial number of "Ln". Why ? >> I'm guessing OLTEP followed by Klingon anti-cloaking **

Lnnnnn tapes mystery

RACF Security Administrator's Guide says: You cannot RACF-protect nonlabeled tapes that have a volume serial number of "Ln". Why ? Just curious -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- BRE Bank SA ul. Senatorska 18 00-950 Warszawa www.brebank.pl Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy XII Wydział