J" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 05/02/2008 10:03 PM AST
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Problem with stacked ddr tape and possible DYNAM
And yes ... Chuckie beat me to a pulp and gave my initial response to
Jan (or at least part of it) ... Apologies ... Apologies ... Apologies
...
May 02, 2008 09:51 PM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: Problem with stacked ddr tape and possible DYNAM
>
> Aw geez, this is getting to detailed.
> I just saw a chance to elbow Chuckie in the ribs and jumped
> on it. I think that David got the point right off. :-)
>
PROTECTED]
Sent: 05/02/2008 09:09 PM AST
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Problem with stacked ddr tape and possible DYNAM
Not to beat the dead horse ... but Mike is correct in assuming that
Dynam/T VM does not currently have support for MULTIUSER ATTACH or
recognition of it.
For those o
008 06:43 PM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: Problem with stacked ddr tape and possible DYNAM
>
> And of course it could be updated, but they probably have to
> weigh the cost vs other new things that development could be
> doing. So goes the "Song of
Friday, May 02, 2008 06:43 PM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: Problem with stacked ddr tape and possible DYNAM
>
> And of course it could be updated, but they probably have to
> weigh the cost vs other new things that development could be
> doing. So goes th
Frazier
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 06:15 PM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: Problem with stacked ddr tape and possible DYNAM
>
> I bet because the code was written before multiuser attach
> support existed.
>
> Les Geer (607-429-3580) wrote:
> >
> > C
Les,
It's because in this case the play/interaction is intiment between the
end user and the DYNAMCMS server ... DFSMS is completely out of the
picture ... the tape drive is simply being CP GIVE'd back and forth
between the end user and the DYNAMCMS server (dictated by DynamT/VM
code).
JR (Steven
> I'm not sure whether you need:
> a) MORE LAUDANUM
> or
> b) Urgent visit from A Person From Porlock
Unfortunately, I'd have to deceive someone important again. He's
watching this time.
(and people ask me what a good liberal education is good for...)
On May 2, 2008, at 6:01 PM, David Boyes wrote:
And of course it could be updated, but they probably have to weigh
the
cost vs other new things that development could be doing. So goes
the
"Song of Chuckie"... ;-)
Or the Ballad of Chuckie (if old Sam Coleridge wants a footnote for
this,
> And of course it could be updated, but they probably have to weigh the
> cost vs other new things that development could be doing. So goes the
> "Song of Chuckie"... ;-)
Or the Ballad of Chuckie (if old Sam Coleridge wants a footnote for
this, he's a loonie):
In Endicott did Mom Watson's bo
:14 PM EST
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Problem with stacked ddr tape and possible DYNAM
I bet because the code was written before multiuser attach support existed.
Les Geer (607-429-3580) wrote:
Curious as to why a tape give is issued here rather than exploiting
the multiuser a
er
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 3:15 PM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: Problem with stacked ddr tape and possible DYNAM
>
> I bet because the code was written before multiuser attach
> support existed.
>
> Les Geer (607-429-3580) wrote:
> >
> >
I bet because the code was written before multiuser attach support existed.
Les Geer (607-429-3580) wrote:
Curious as to why a tape give is issued here rather than exploiting
the multiuser attach support in RMS
Best Regards,
Les Geer
IBM z/VM and Linux Development
--
Stephen Frazier
Informat
On Friday, 05/02/2008 at 01:39 EDT, "Imler, Steven J"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been waiting for another report of a failure from the customer
> after providing them with some trace diagnostics ... but as far as I
> know there hasn't been another failure (because I haven't heard anything
z/VM Operating System
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 01:22 PM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: Problem with stacked ddr tape and possible DYNAM
>
> On Friday, 05/02/2008 at 12:06 EDT, Jan Canavan
> <[EMAIL
On Friday, 05/02/2008 at 12:06 EDT, Jan Canavan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> What we get on the previous volumes are:
>
>
> Tape 0590 given to DYNAMVM 0590
> Tape 0181 attached
> 11:22:13 CADT831I *CLOSED* DDRWKLY 0590 050094 DDR.XX.530W01.2
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
