Re: Tape drives : MVS & VM

2011-03-16 Thread Alain Benveniste
> > > > > 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

Re: Tape drives : MVS & VM

2011-03-15 Thread George Henke/NYLIC
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

Re: Tape drives : MVS & VM

2011-03-15 Thread Alain Benveniste
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

Re: Tape drives : MVS & VM

2011-03-15 Thread Alan Altmark
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

Re: Tape drives : MVS & VM

2011-03-15 Thread Alan Altmark
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

Re: Tape drives : MVS & VM

2011-03-15 Thread Rob van der Heij
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

Re: Tape drives : MVS & VM

2011-03-15 Thread Shimon Lebowitz
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

Re: Tape drives : MVS & VM

2011-03-14 Thread Stephen Powell
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

Re: Tape drives : MVS & VM

2011-03-14 Thread Mark Pace
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.

Tape drives : MVS & VM

2011-03-14 Thread Alain Benveniste
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