>
>
>
>
> Alan Altmark
> Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System
> 03/15/2011 11:48 AM
>
> Please respond to
> The IBM z/VM Operating System
>
> To
> IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> cc
> Subject
> Re: Tape drives : MVS & VM
>
>
>
&g
rating System
To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: Tape drives : MVS & VM
On Monday, 03/14/2011 at 01:41 EDT, Mark Pace
wrote:
> Basically all you did was tell the OSs that the devices were not being
shared.
> If you did not specifically limit the access to a partic
Alan, I think too of a mistmach, a out of synchro. I will check if any errors
are reported to the hmc tomorrow.
Mvs has no assign parameter in the vary command. And yes mvs must know if the
drive is really usable or not.
At this time we are like if we had attached the drives in multiuser in lp
On Tuesday, 03/15/2011 at 04:15 EDT, Rob van der Heij
wrote:
> But tape management on z/VM remains a challenge since a virtual
> machine can unload the tape and get another volume mounted outside
> control of the tape manager. I wanted to make CP trap that and involve
> the tape manager, but I m
On Monday, 03/14/2011 at 01:41 EDT, Mark Pace
wrote:
> Basically all you did was tell the OSs that the devices were not being
shared.
> If you did not specifically limit the access to a particular LPAR then
all the
> LPARs can see because the CHPID is shared.
I'm not an MVS expert, but if t
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Shimon Lebowitz wrote:
> We actually wanted the opposite -
> tapes shared between machines,
> all attaches under control of one central program,
> and since detaching an assigned drive forces a RUN,
> we wanted no ASSIGN at all.
>
> I implemented this via CP Exit F
We actually wanted the opposite -
tapes shared between machines,
all attaches under control of one central program,
and since detaching an assigned drive forces a RUN,
we wanted no ASSIGN at all.
I implemented this via CP Exit FFB, which altered the
ATTACH to include NOASSIGN on the command,
unles
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:29:59 -0400 (EDT), Alain Benveniste wrote:
>
> We did a P.O.R this weekend. We added DASD rdev, the only thing we
> are supposed to do and now we can vary online a same rdev to both
> MVS & VM. We check back the modifications. The chpid are shared,
> the rdev are shareabl
Basically all you did was tell the OSs that the devices were not being
shared. If you did not specifically limit the access to a particular LPAR
then all the LPARs can see because the CHPID is shared.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Alain Benveniste wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We did a P.O.R this weekend.
Hi,
We did a P.O.R this weekend. We added DASD rdev, the only thing we are
supposed to do and now we can vary online a same rdev to both MVS & V
M. We
check back the modifications. The chpid are shared, the rdev are
shareable=NO in the MVS IODEF. We don't know where to look at. We chang
ed
somethi
10 matches
Mail list logo