But one possible cautionary note that I would want to check on before
saying the VTOCIX and VVDS names are immaterial:
If you do a DFDSS COPY with DUMPCONDITIONING to another online DASD
volume (which preserves the volser of the target so it can stay online
and then be source of a DUMP), with the intent of being able to later
use a dump of the COPY target to RESTORE the original volume, the
"original" volser appears to be derived in some way from either the
VTOCIX or the VVDS (we found at one DR test that if both are missing
from the volume, the correct volser definitely isn't restored!). I
don't know if the restore is driven from the names of these datasets or
in some way from their contents. If from the names, having those out of
sync with the actual volser could be a potential problem down the road.
At the time we encountered the DFDSS RESTORE VTOCIX/VVDS/volser
dependency, it was undocumented; so my understanding is based on
empirical evidence. We ended up having to put a VTOCIX on our 1-file,
non-SMS, JES spool volumes to avoid ending up with incorrect volsers at
DR recovery. I always assumed it was the highly-visible volser in the
VTOCIX name that did the trick, but maybe it was something in the VTOCIX
contents.
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
datasets for the indexed VTOC and VVDS reflect the name of the volume
That has never been a problem.
Since they're not catalogued, the names are meaningless.
They are found (through the VTOC) by TTR, not by name.
...
--
Joel C. Ewing, Fort Smith, AR [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
