MVSFORUMS.com

grantreghill

I have this situation wherein an installation tape from a software company
arrived with a volser that is the same with 1 of our active/live production volser(contains data and not scratch). Thanks in advance. Razz

CaptObvious · Beginner Joined: 01 Feb 2006 Posts: 19 Topics: 1

I think that as long as you specify the VOL=SER= parameter, it won't try to look up the dataset in the catalog or your tape management product, so you should be able to use the tape at hand. You'd just have to intervene if you're using some kind of robotic tape unit. It's probably be best to eject the production tape and enter the installation tape into the library. If your tape unit uses manual mounts, it shouldn't be a problem.

Of course, I'm only guessing, as I'd be wary of duplicating the problem here. But give it a try.

Bill Dennis · Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:57 pm Post subject:

With CA-1 we can say EXPDT=98000 so that CA-1 doesn't try to verify the VOL/DSN info. What tape manager software do you use?
_________________
Regards,
Bill Dennis

Disclaimer: My comments on this foorum are my own and do not represent the opinions or suggestions of any other person or business entity.

grantreghill · Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:12 pm Post subject:

We use CA-1, and yes I have used EXPDT=98000. I have also asked the librarian to take the tape with duplicate volser out of the silo. We use the manual mounting for installation/upgrade tapes. The weird part is that I was able to unload the data but for the the next job which requires tape mounting, I'm experiencing the same problem. I suspect that there must be some kind of cache or something that need to be initialized because it keeps looking up the dataset in the tape where I have no access to. And it does not show the joblog anymore that it requires mounting but immediately abends to S9ED.
_________________
In every rule, there is an exception. Except this one.

CaptObvious · Beginner Joined: 01 Feb 2006 Posts: 19 Topics: 1

So you had an unload job that worked, but another job which requires the unload tape again failed. I'd look at the DD statements between the two and see what's different.

Can you check that abend code? I can't find a 9ED.

grantreghill · Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:04 pm Post subject:

Yes I was able to unload it after I posted these topic. 9ED is correct. I also can't find anything about 9ED.
_________________
In every rule, there is an exception. Except this one.

grantreghill · Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:59 pm Post subject:

It's okay now. The vendor replaced the installation tapes. Thanks for the views and replies.
_________________
In every rule, there is an exception. Except this one.