You do not need it to be CP_Owned for that. If it is listed in the User_Volume_List, CP will complain if it is not available at IPL. That is the purpose of the list.
There are other good reasons to use the User_Volume_List instead of the CP_Owned list. If it is in CP_Owned and you want to remove it from the system, it is somewhat more problematic if you need to remove the volume from the configuration. Also, if it ever had areas that were allocated to page or spool, the system will use them if the allocation map has not been destroyed and the disk is CP_Owned. The latter little oversight could be a real headache if the forgotten CP space included spool. Regards, Richard Schuh > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Greenberg > Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 4:10 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Question about a user volume > > On: Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 02:56:21PM -0700,Daniel Allen Wrote: > > } I have a 3390-3 volume that is used to store users 191 minidisks. > } > } In the previous three (3) z/VM systems (4.3, 5.2 and 5.3), > this volume } has been CP-OWNED. > } > } Is there a reason to continue the practice for z/VM 5.4 ? > > Besides what Marty, Rich and Dave said there is one more > possible reason to have a volume containing only minidisks be > CP-OWNED. If the volume is CP-OWNED and is not available at > IPL time, CP will complain so it can be fixed. > > -- > Rich Greenberg N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com > + 1 239 543 1353 > Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. > VM'er since CP-67 > Canines:Val, Red, Shasta & Casey (RIP), Red & Zero, Siberians > Owner:Chinook-L > Retired at the beach Asst > Owner:Sibernet-L >
