VATLST does not offer any I/O protection. It is simply an organisation tool.
We don't have any information other than a specific error Venkat has found. I'm making the same guess that he is creating a sandbox system but might not have considered the hardware configuration. VATLST does not offer any I/O protection so he really needs to ensure that any shared volumes are properly protected. Especially if he is sharing with a production system. One thing that comes to mind (but not limited to) is hardware reserve is probably off for shared volumes and probably no GRS connection to handle hardware locking situations. SMS or non-sms are both affected. E.g. PDS or PDS/E directory could get damaged because hardware locking is suppressed and directory update is not serialized between the systems. Jon Perryman On Monday, May 5, 2014 5:42 PM, "Gibney, Dave" <[email protected]> wrote: For what it's worth, this is my VATLST member for the sandbox. It keeps user stuff of the system volume when SMS has problems. SMS rarely has problems :) > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> No, I dont think adding at least 1 volumes marked as storage will make >> difference, because in our other system as well, we have defined only >> PRIVATE all working fine. But still suggest, if I really need to make any >> changes to solve this issue. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
