Re: WRKOPTVOL shows phantom volume

On 08-Dec-2015 22:54 -0600, DrFranken wrote:

On 12/8/2015 3:17 PM, rob wrote:

I do a WRKOPTVOL and I am seeing:
Volume Media Authorization
Volume Device Type Type List
I_BASE_01 OPT02 *PRIMARY *DVD-ROM QOPTSEC

There is no such volume loaded.
This rack has but one physical DVD and it has the B_GROUP_1 loaded
in it right now.

4=Remove
OPT1331 - Optical volume I_BASE_01 not found.

9=Delete
RMVOPTCTG ?*VOL('I_BASE_01')
OPT1331 - Optical volume I_BASE_01 not found.

5=Display
DSPOPT ?*VOL('I_BASE_01') ??OUTPUT(*N)
OPT1331 - Optical volume I_BASE_01 not found.

WRKCFGSTS CFGTYPE(*DEV) CFGD(OPT02)
2=Vary off
Still shows up on WRKOPTVOL
I can delete OPT02 and it still shows up on OPT02 in WRKOPTVOL
I can rebuild it and it's still there.

Let 'em have it Rob!!

We fight this all the time!. The workaround seems to be to create a
device with the name opt02 and mount another disk in there. Then
unmount it.

IBM is aware of this issue but isn't so keen on fixing it because
there is a workaround.

Quite simply: If a known issue, then what is the APAR?

Or, FWiW: That response would suggest that there is [should be] an APAR [presumably having the closing-code of UR1="Fixed in a future release"], in which, whatever is that "workaround", has been documented in the "Circumvention" section of that APAR; that, if no such APAR exists, then IBM is failing their customers not only per the defect remaining, but for failure to create a publicly available APAR document that states that the defect is already known-of and if\when the defect might be addressed. At least when documented, anyone skilled at searching symptoms, or deferring to their service provider to do so, likely they would be able easily to find such an APAR; e.g. currently a web search on "msgOPT1331" and "APAR" revealed nothing [that is not already corrected by a PTF; and mostly old].

I suppose that the encouragement to Rob serves indirectly as a suggestion that Rob should inform IBM of their [apparently past failure of] responsibility to actually document a known\admitted defect with an APAR; i.e. rather than allowing a PMR to close _without an APAR_ first being associated.?