Re: What is the highest named virtual QPADEV** device allowed?

On 27-Feb-2015 10:20 -0600, Steinmetz, Paul wrote:

What is the highest named QPADEV*** device allowed?

For the system-defined naming, there is a prefix of QPADEV followed by a suffix of zzzz where each letter z represents either a digit in the Code Page 37 (CP0037) 0xF0 to 0xF9 or one of the non-vowel upper-case /standard/ USEnglish alphabetic characters A to Z [or more appropriately, B to Z]. The /highest/ value then, according to EBCDIC code-point weighting, would be: QPADEV9999

I never see a virtual named higher than QPADEV0099?

What is [poorly] documented of the naming does not preclude a /higher/ value than that; that the algorithm is not well documented is not an issue however, as the /naming/ is an implementation issue on which nothing should be coded to depend, such that knowing just the name prefix should be all that is required. FWiW: Systems I had used, routinely created a device name with a non-zero alphanumeric value for the third z in the zzzz suffix; e.g. QPADEV06R2 or QPADEV0W7G

Even though I didn't hit the max, is there possibly a naming issue?.
No errors on iSeries side.
Received below error message on remote server.
: Failed to get a host session due to no available user pool entries

Where was the message logged? Per having stated not issued "on iSeries side", asking what message identifer, what job, and what were the sending and receiving program\module\procedure to further reveal the context would yield little in response. So instead, the more appropriate question might be: What was the failing request and as requested from what software\utility, and sfw running on what client platform?

I delete all virtuals with a AJS job every night.
10 VRYCFG CFGOBJ(QPA*) CFGTYPE(*DEV) STATUS(*OFF)
20 DLTDEVD DEVD(QPA*)

System value . . . . . : QAUTOVRT
Description . . . . . : Autoconfigure virtual devices
Number of devices to
autoconfigure . . . . : *NOMAX 0-32500, *NOMAX, *REGFAC

What leads to the supposition that the Automatic creation of Virtual WorkStation Device Descriptions has anything to do with the error received?