×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
On 30 Sep 2013 04:52, rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
I opened up a DCR to IBM to ask them to add some error checking to
stop you from adding a 17th drive with ADDNWSSTGL. Here was their
reply:
User Group Number - MR0225137148
Document Status - Rejected
Title - Add error checking on ADDNWSSTGL to stop adding a 17th drive
on a nwsd which only supports 16.
IBM does not intend to provide a solution to this request...
IBM goes on to show that it's documented in a few places, and posted
the links, but thinks it's silly to add error checking to commands.
They think that it is /silly/ or they expect that there is little
value for doing so; as in no income, yet obviously a cost, with a
benefit to very few of both customers and invocations of that command?
My guess... the latter. That is, if some deep pockets paid for
contracted services from IBM to implement something to resolve the
concern, then I would expect that resolution might just find its way
into the OS.
A VCP was mentioned, but object-specific validations are considered
generally inappropriate for Validity Checker Programs. Such checks are
expected instead, to belong in a POP or CPP, so I would not expect any
IBM solution to be implemented in its VCP anyhow.
Could the issue be avoided by review of the "Number of storage
spaces" as determined by the Retrieve Network Server Description
(QDCRNWSD) API for the value specified on the Network server description
(NWSD) parameter on the Add Server Storage Link (ADDNWSSTGL) command?
Because a NWSD() specification is required, I expect a Command
Analyzer command exit-program could be registered to do the validation
of the CL request at run-time.? Assuming the aforementioned API [or
something else] could be used to implement the necessary logic. Someone
who might benefit by assistance from such protective code, might write
that themselves, and share with others [at a cost]. Add the solution to
the System Change Management, and it should remain in effect, and not in
conflict with the OS unless the noted limit of sixteen [being checked
against] was removed.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.