Maybe it was FILE500 > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On > Behalf Of Gibney, Dave > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2022 3:42 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Limiting quantity of tape drives used by user > > As I removed automation from my just recently shutdown system, I installed > a MPF exit from the > CBT ( I think maybe file 882). This MPF2REXX just did a F AXR,msgid for the > messages it was active for. > > I suspect I could have extended this to notice tape mount (requests, mounts, > and releases) to monitor drive allocation and react to a high water limit. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On > > Behalf Of Mark Jacobs > > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2022 3:22 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Limiting quantity of tape drives used by user
> > A very long time ago at $previousjob-1 we used an MPF exit for messages > > such as TMS001, IEC101A, IEC501A, IEC501E, IEF233A and IEF233D. This exit > > looked at the tape UCBs for the job name of the newly allocated drive and > if > > the job exceeded a defined limit the exit canceled the job. > > > > I do have the source code available if someone wants to read some real > ugly > > code. > > > > Mark Jacobs > > > > Sent from ProtonMail, Swiss-based encrypted email. > > > > GPG Public Key - > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://api.protonmail.ch/pks/lookup?op=get > > > &[email protected]__;!!JmPEgBY0HMszNaDT!unG2wgFb > > C9Q5AhE5o2JCM5Z8nrV7xUpk8BGtU87QxduUT5LIj- > > gix4ZtTaFtD31RcbIJUy_VEaesvd8bjWKG0Nyp1MITpLkA$ > > > > > > ------- Original Message ------- > > On Monday, November 7th, 2022 at 6:06 PM, Glenn Miller > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > We encountered the exact same problem recently. In our situation, a > batch > > job using the IBM DB2 DSNUTILB attempting to perform a DB2 Reorg of a > > partitioned DB2 Table with 500 partitions. The batch job was submitted by a > > TSO User, not our TWS job scheduler. The job slowly allocated about 470 > > virtual tape drives in about 90 minutes until it received IEF877E followed > > by > > IEF238D. Unfortunately, our automation replied WAIT to the IEF238D and > > replied NOHOLD to the subsequent IDF433D. That caused Operations to be > > unaware of the 'problem' until nearly an hour later when HSM need a > virtual > > tape drive. > > > A cancel of that 'mis behaving' batch job cleared up the problem, > however > > we have be struggling with finding a way to prevent the problem or alerting > > our Operations folks in real time that a 'not good' situation may be > occurring. > > As of today, we don't have a good answer for either part. > > > Glenn Miller > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM- > MAIN > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
