If you mean he looks at tape 9876, enters that hash, but physically mounts 1234, well, yeah, I guess. But that would mean having a tape in each hand; rule would be "touch one tape at a time", easy to remember. I hope!
Still, if no labels on tape (again, no label is the norm on VM), a lot better than nothing. -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Saturday, November 8, 2025 2:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Ancient history: 3420s On Sat, 8 Nov 2025 11:34:47 -0500, Phil Smith III wrote: >It was interconnected, so (and I'm making up the syntax, where "nnnn" = >real tape drive address and "hash" and "userid" are presumably clear) > >MOUNT nnnn FOR userid 181 hash > >would fail if "hash" didn't match the tape number on the request. At that >point I don't think there is a "wrong" drive. > I was envisioning two mount requests appearing on the console (or are they serialized?) Operator grabs two reels; cross-mounts; replies with hashes matching volsers on wrong drives. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
