For the first time ever, we are considering turning on SMS for tape. We've had decades of business practice where SMS and tape never intersect. My main concern is this: without SMS, a tape data set can be created and used without involving any ICF catalog. One 'benefit' of this practice is that multiple like-named tape data sets can coexist in the tape library as long a user is careful to provide correct volser information. The tape management system must support this option. We used CA-1 for years, and now RMM for years. As long as the user is careful, uncataloged tape data sets can be handled just fine.
SMS, however, introduces a whole new variable. In general, an SMS data set-certainly for DASD-must be cataloged. This precludes duplicate names. I don't want to argue the merits of this restriction. The point is that we may have countless cases of duplicate names. If they're not a problem within SMS, then we're cool. If we have to change business practices to accommodate SMS, we have a long and winding road to hoe. . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-543-6132 Office <===== NEW robin...@sce.com<mailto:robin...@sce.com> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
