ADSM-L

Problems with version 2 unix clients

1995-11-16 11:48:18
Subject: Problems with version 2 unix clients
From: "Brian D. Beagan CT/90" <bbeagan AT DEBASER.CT.GMR DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 11:48:18 -0500
I am experiencing some problems while using the SGI and Solaris version 2
clients.  I have both a version 1 and a version 2 server available on an MVS
system, and the problem seems to be present when restoring from either server.
 The problem also occurs in both the command line and GUI clients.  When I try
to restore files with the replace=no option and files are stored on offline
media, I get the tapeprompt asking whether I want to wait for the mount.  If I
say to wait, (in the GUI) I get the 'waiting for mount of offline media'
window.  In the restore window, I see that it continues to process files, even
with the 'waiting for media' window still up.  I also notice that the server
does not think this client is in a MediaW state, but an IdleW, as if its
waiting for me to reply to something (another tape mount request?).  It stays
in this state until the server and client eventually time out.  I must kill the
GUI to get it to stop.  I also get this error message when the tapeprompt comes
up:

Xlib: unexpected async reply (sequence 0x9ead)!

I have the same problem with the command line interface.  I don't get the Xlib
error message, of course.  What I get in the output stream is:

 ** Interrupted **
ANS4118I Waiting for mount of offline media....

Except that it never does wait for offline media.  It skips that file and
continues to process the other files even though it should be in a MediaW
state.

It seems that when I ask to wait for the tapemount of a file that is possibly
skipped (because I specified replace=no) that the mount request is ignored or
put in the background.


Again, I have the problem in both the Solaris and SGI version 2 clients,
restoring from either a version 1 or version 2 server on an MVS system.  It
also only seems to be a problem if I use the replace=no option.  Use of the
-tapeprompt=no option has no effect - it still fails with it specified.
So, has anyone else run across this????
So, has anyone else run across this????

--
Brian Beagan
Brian Beagan
Electronic Data Systems
Internet:  bbeagan AT rcsuna.gmr DOT com
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Problems with version 2 unix clients, Brian D. Beagan CT/90 <=