Subject: I can't believe this: Dfhsm Audit Y2K critical problem Date: 6 Jan 2000 02:53:53 GMT From: kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net (cory hamasaki) Organization: HHResearch Co. Newsgroups: comp.software.year-2000 References: 1

It might be the flu affecting my (limited) ability to reason but aren't we seeing more than a few system level Y2K problems in the mainframe world? How could people have tested for a year and not encountered things like this?

I make this -4 Days and we've seen several problems with archivers and schedulers.

The most popular scheduler for mainframes (kind-a a big boy's Chron) is CA7. CA7 has a Y2K problem discovered only two days ago. This hasn't made the newsgroups yet but I ran into it while rejiggering jobs to make the batch window. So that's my Y2K contribution for the day.

I understand "Y2K is Over", "Y2K was a Big Nothing" and even "Waaaa! Milne called me a butthead so I'll take a couple cheap shots now that I think Y2K is over." but DFSMS is used by thousands of mainframe shops. It is a key part of enterprise storage strategy.

These kinds of systems are fundamental in the mainframe world.

Whatever, I don't care that the pollies think I'm clueless, I'm starting to think I'm clueless. I never expected multiple problems in storage management.

JUrlaub@MICROAGE.COM (Urlaub, Jim) wrote:

> Ref: apar OW42602 > > For all DFSMShsm users, IBM just posted an alert regarding data > loss if you perform an "AUDIT DIRECTORYCONTROLS VOLUMES(vvvvvv) FIX" > (where vvvvvv is an ML1 volume). This will result in the > deletion of the vtoc copies on this ML1 volume that have been > created in year 2000. All vtoc copies created prior to year > 2000 are not affected. Migrated datasets are not affected either. > > Sample errors that I encountered under DFSMShsm 1.4.0 are: > ERR 144 HSML1A - HSM.VTOC.T170119.VPSYS05.D00003 NOT IN P RECORD FOR PSYS05 > ERR 141 HSML1K - SCRATCHED EMPTY DATA SET HSM.VTOC.T311118.VSMSN01.D00003 > > A patch fix is now available for 1.3 only. > Nothing yet on 1.2, 1.4, or 1.5.

How can this be? This is what? The second, third, fourth, general mainframe problem we've seen? Didn't anyone test this?

And yes, Polly Moshe might be right again. They already have a fix for 1.3, the others will be along real-soon-now.

Why would I believe that there was anything but the most cursory testing done? Someone please crosspost this to TB2K. Ed Yourdon could use a good laugh.

cory hamasaki I'm heading for bed, sleep for another 10-12 hours. I'm taking a can of coffee with me. This morning I struggled to get up. I'm hoping that if I can wake up enough to drink the 6 oz can, I'll be able to get out of bed in less than an hour, then drag myself in to fumble around doing whatever clueless thing it is that I do when I'm not watching Baywatch. 

-- (casper@ghost.spook), January 06, 2000

Answers

I'm still waiting for Cory to weigh in on the rollover non-events in WRP 135.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), January 06, 2000.

He covered that *before* the rollover - that's what makes him so special.

-- Me (me@me.me), January 06, 2000.

Thanks Casper for the cross-post.......

-- kevin (innxxs@yahoo.com), January 06, 2000.

I'm seeing LOTS of 'small' problems, PCs, Web etc. Cory is seeing mainframe problems...
Maybe it is 'Death by a Thousand Cuts'. Won't know for a few weeks yet.

-- Dan G (thepcguru@hotmail.com), January 06, 2000.

IBM Alert - DFSMShsm: Do not run the AUDIT function with the FIX parameter until further notice

-- Risteard Mac Thomais (uachtaran@ireland.com), January 06, 2000.