Joined: 31 Oct 2007 Posts: 38 Location: Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Greetings,
I'm not quite sure whether this is the right Forum for my question, but here it goes.
One of our jobs is writing multiple files in 1 tapevolume. At the end of every file, we get the usual IEC205I-msg telling you about FILESEQ, DSN, VOLS and TOTALBLOCKS. Nothing strange about that.
But, judging from what I see in the Syslog, some of these messages (not all) have some additional text a couple of positions after the TOTALBLOCKS=xxxx. It's either just an asterisk, or an asterisk followed by the letter H (*H) or even *HA or *HAS.
What does this mean? Is it an artefact of the Syslog or what? It doesn't seem to indicate a problem, because processing went without a hitch. We're just curious and cannot find anything in the Messages and Codes.
Willem Vermeer
ING Bank
Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Joined: 09 Mar 2011 Posts: 7309 Location: Inside the Matrix
You are on JES2? You think it is the start of a HASP message?
When you say the processing went fine, did you read all the multiple files successfully?
EDIT:
Googled and found this, might give you something to check on:
Quote:
Change 29.248 INVALID ARGUMENT TO SUBSTR in SYSLOG IEC205I message text
VMACTMNT in ASMTAPEE/MXGTMNT tape mount/syslog monitor SMF record.
Nov 9, 2011 Parsing to INPUT the mmm after TOTALBLOCKS=mmm into the
SYSLBLKS variable in TYPESYMT dataset expected 16 bytes
and failed when there were fewer characters for mmm. Now
the parse stops at the first blank character.
This change in format of the IEC205I message occurred
after PTF UA90604, in APAR xxnnnnn, which included
IFG0194J, which contains message IEC205I.
The prior PTF level was UA60149.
APAR OA38051 now documents:
Unnecessary information on the third line of IEC205I
Characters *HAS will appear after spaces
and it was these unexpected characters instead of
blanks that led to this MXG circumvention change.
Thanks to Clayton Buck, UniGroup, USA.
Joined: 31 Oct 2007 Posts: 38 Location: Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Bill,
Yes, we're on JES2 and, to be perfectly honest, I don't know whether it's a HASP-message. If it is, then it's a strange place to put a HASP-message, don't you think?
As to that "processing went fine", I was talking about these files being written to. I assume they're readable, but must admit that we didn't check that.
Interesting stuff you found on Google. It sure looks like something worth looking into and I will. Thanks.
Willem Vermeer
ING Bank
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
