5QD7CKPM.
(PROCESS: 5)
01/24/2010 14:46:49 ANR8341I End-of-volume reached for REMOVABLEFILE
volume 5QD7CKPM. (PROCESS: 5)
01/24/2010 14:46:49 ANR0515I Process 5 closed volume 5QD7CKPM.
(PROCESS: 5)
01/24/2010 14:46:49 ANR8468I REMOVABLEFILE volume 5QD7CKPM dismounted
from drive USBDRIVE
6:27 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] ANR8341I End-of-volume reached for REMOVABLEFILE volume
On 07/02/2010, at 12:45 PM, Steven Haigh wrote:
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:25:01 +1100, Steven Haigh net...@crc.id.au wrote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:33:57 -0500, Richard Sims r...@bu.edu
, March 04, 2010 6:27 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] ANR8341I End-of-volume reached for REMOVABLEFILE
volume
On 07/02/2010, at 12:45 PM, Steven Haigh wrote:
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:25:01 +1100, Steven Haigh net...@crc.id.au
wrote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:33:57 -0500
/2010 14:46:49 ANR8340I REMOVABLEFILE volume 5QD7CKPM mounted.
(PROCESS: 5)
01/24/2010 14:46:49 ANR0513I Process 5 opened output volume 5QD7CKPM.
(PROCESS: 5)
01/24/2010 14:46:49 ANR8341I End-of-volume reached for REMOVABLEFILE
volume 5QD7CKPM. (PROCESS: 5)
01/24/2010 14:46:49
I think that part of the problem is that you have drive/volume
expectations from Removeablefile devclass utilization, when in fact
its a file-based mechanism. Two things you could do are to assure
that the devclass MAXCAPacity value is sized that that it has the
potential for writing a file as
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:33:57 -0500, Richard Sims r...@bu.edu wrote:
I think that part of the problem is that you have drive/volume
expectations from Removeablefile devclass utilization, when in fact
its a file-based mechanism. Two things you could do are to assure
that the devclass MAXCAPacity
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:25:01 +1100, Steven Haigh net...@crc.id.au wrote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:33:57 -0500, Richard Sims r...@bu.edu wrote:
(file system), and that your Unix resource limit filesize is not
restricting the size. Also beware file size limits for a chosen file
system type, which
