Are you thinking of shared UCW instead of shared UCB? Bill Choate Emory University AAIT
-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Arnett Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 4:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: S237-04 and tapes I ran into this several years back...Okay, 15 years...with IBM 3422 tapes. According to the IBM CE, the erase gaps were not being written properly to the tapes when a write error occured. It wasn't until I went to add a string of 3420 Mod 8s that I spotted an error made by my precessor in the definition of the 3422s. He had set them up without shared UCBs. As I understand error recovery on 3420s and 3422s, the errors on these devices are posted through the UCB of the controller(device 0). This is not a restriction with 3480/3490s, so not sure what drives still require shared UCBs, but it is something to verify. R.S. wrote: > I observed an abend S237-04, when reading dataset from tape (using > IEBGENER). > The manual says it is due to discrepancy between # of blocks read and > the value written to EOF label. > > The manual also suggests it can be hardware error. > Well... The drive looks OK - only one tape is affected, the media > looks OK (i.e. can be read using BLP). > > Q: What component to suspect ? > drive ? > system ? > application ? > > Any clue ? > > Regards ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
