The flaw in that argument it that one may not know a priori in which
data set the volume boundary will fall.
In general you are right, but the OP said they specified
VOL=SER=(VOL1,VOL2) to add the subsequent files, so he was obviously
able to know when it went to the second tape.
If you are a
Others have addressed your problem.
I would like to raise an issue with your concept.
What happens if the tape goes bad?
You have not lost only the current generation, you have lost several levels.
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:00:48 -0600 "Kok, Howi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>Hi All,
:>We have
In a recent note, Bruce Black said:
> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:10:57 -0500
>
> You probably should have used just VOL=SER=VOL2 for the subsequent
> files. You might have noticed that specifying both volsers forced OPEN
> to mount the first tape, spin all the way down it looking for the
Bruce
That's it. Thanks for your help.
Howi
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Bruce Black
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 12:11 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Multifile multivolume tape data set problem
>
>
One of the data sets have gone to a second volume.
Subsequent generations were added with
DSN=GDG(+1),LABEL=(n,SL),VOL=SER=(VOL1,VOL2). Access to a single data
set in VOL1 or VOL2 has no problem. Also, access to two or more data
sets that reside in VOL1 in a concatenation has no problem. Howev
Hi All,
We have some GDG data sets that are stacked on a tape. Each month a new
generation is added to the tape and data are appended to it
periodically. One of the data sets have gone to a second volume.
Subsequent generations were added with
DSN=GDG(+1),LABEL=(n,SL),VOL=SER=(VOL1,VOL2). Access
6 matches
Mail list logo
