Nam block errors

[Volker Halle]

Kelly,

I re-tried the %RMS-F-RLF google search today and it does not work for me as well anymore. I'm pretty sure, that I tried it yesterday, before entering the reply in ITRC, but ??? As a workaround, search for RMS RLF BACKUP in google groups.

Volker.

[Hoff]

That the error is RLF invalid NAM block is weird; I'd have expected that to be one of the two errors:

%RMS-F-RLF, invalid related NAM block

%RMS-F-NAM, invalid NAM block or NAM block not accessible

Strangely, I don't see any hits in any of the search engines I've tried other than this thread. FWIW, it is increasingly infeasible and decreasingly effective to try to use Google to search for information at the HP site. (There are blocks in place preventing Googlebot from indexing?)

Definitely look to ODS-5 and to an OpenVMS release from this decade. :-) The RLF error does point to a bug in BACKUP, do look for ECO kits. That written, file-oriented operations with BACKUP with greater than eight directory levels means you need ODS-5 and extended filename specification support, or careful use of concealed rooted logical names with use of /SELECT.

[Kelly Stewart_1]

Hoff: "Um, I'd call that miraculous, actually. :-)"

Nothing miraculous about becoming senile! My machines are VAXes and the version, of course, is 7.3 not 7.3-1. Sometimes the fingers just keep typing by themselves. Jack's machines apparently are also VAXes ("version 6.1 ... not Alpha").

Volker: "I re-tried the %RMS-F-RLF google search today and it does not work for me as well anymore."

It seems to be about the hyphens. When I replace them with spaces, I get hits.

Hoff again: "The RLF error does point to a bug in BACKUP, do look for ECO kits."

I am confident I have installed all BACKUP related ECOs, but I'll double-check when time permits.

"That written, file-oriented operations with BACKUP with greater than eight directory levels means you need ODS-5..."

Well, in our case, we thought we _had_ limited ourselves to eight levels, but BACKUP disagreed. BACKUP without /SELECT automatically inserts the root directory into the file specification (at least during restoration); CREATE/DIR does not. The root cause(no pun intended), I suspect, is not BACKUP, but the(apparent)fact that the root directory is not counted toward the level limit unless it is explicitly entered.

All told, at my site it's a rare, moderate annoyance. Sound's like Jack has a more serious situation.

Kelly

[Steven Schweda]

> [...] file-oriented operations with BACKUP
> with greater than eight directory levels
> means you need ODS-5 and extended filename
> specification support, or careful use of
> concealed rooted logical names with use of
> /SELECT.

Which part of that don't I understand?

ALP $ backup /log btest.bck /save [*...]
%BACKUP-S-CREDIR, created directory ALP$DKA0:[BTEST.ONE]
%BACKUP-S-CREDIR, created directory ALP$DKA0:[BTEST.ONE.TWO]
%BACKUP-S-CREDIR, created directory ALP$DKA0:[BTEST.ONE.TWO.THR]
%BACKUP-S-CREDIR, created directory ALP$DKA0:[BTEST.ONE.TWO.THR.FOU]
%BACKUP-S-CREDIR, created directory ALP$DKA0:[BTEST.ONE.TWO.THR.FOU.FIV]
%BACKUP-S-CREDIR, created directory ALP$DKA0:[BTEST.ONE.TWO.THR.FOU.FIV.SIX]
%BACKUP-S-CREDIR, created directory ALP$DKA0:[BTEST.ONE.TWO.THR.FOU.FIV.SIX.SEV]
%BACKUP-S-CREDIR, created directory ALP$DKA0:[BTEST.ONE.TWO.THR.FOU.FIV.SIX.SEV.
EIG]
%BACKUP-S-CREDIR, created directory ALP$DKA0:[BTEST.ONE.TWO.THR.FOU.FIV.SIX.SEV.
EIG.NIN]
%BACKUP-S-CREDIR, created directory ALP$DKA0:[BTEST.ONE.TWO.THR.FOU.FIV.SIX.SEV.
EIG.NIN.TEN]
%BACKUP-S-CREDIR, created directory ALP$DKA0:[BTEST.ONE.TWO.THR.FOU.FIV.SIX.SEV.
EIG.NIN.TEN.ELE]
%BACKUP-S-CREDIR, created directory ALP$DKA0:[BTEST.ONE.TWO.THR.FOU.FIV.SIX.SEV.
EIG.NIN.TEN.ELE.TWE]

ALP $ show devi /full ALP$DKA0:

Disk ALP$DKA0:, device type IBM-ESXS ST336605LC !#, is online, mounted, file-
oriented device, shareable, served to cluster via MSCP Server, error logging
is enabled.
[...]
Volume Status: ODS-2, subject to mount verification, protected subsystems
enabled, file high-water marking, write-through caching enabled.

[Hoff]

> Which part of that don't I understand?

Brain glitch on my part. BACKUP got tweaked to go deeper; an old limit was been removed from BACKUP. But not removed from my memory. BACKUP used to do only eight levels, and you could get another eight with artful use of a concealed rooted logical name and /SELECT. This limit was removed at V6.2, where BACKUP depth was increased to 32.

[John McL]

Could the problem be the absence of the top level directory specification?

I notice that Steven S used [*...] as the output specification when restoring in his test of accessing to more than 8 directory levels, which worked fine, but the original problem just had [...]

In the original problem I'd try specifiying the output for the restore operation as gollum:[000000...]*.*;*

[Kelly Stewart_1]

John, Steven,

I created a directory tree with eight levels, DKA200:[d1.d2.d3.d4.d5.d6.d7.d8]. I created file test.txt in the lowest directory. I backed-up this tree to saveset test.sav. I then tried to restore the tree to dka300: using various file specifications:

$ set def dka300:[000000]
$
$ backup test.sav/sav [...]
%BACKUP-I-INVDEEPDIR, output directory [000000...] not valid for deepdirectories, try rooted logical
%BACKUP-E-OPENOUT, error opening DKA300:[000000...]TEST.SAV;1 as output-RMS-F-DIR, error in directory name
%BACKUP-I-INVDEEPDIR, output directory [000000...] not valid for deepdirectories, try rooted logical
%BACKUP-E-OPENOUT, error opening DKA300:[000000...]*.*; as output-RMS-F-DIR, error in directory name
$
$
$ backup test.sav/sav [000000...]
%BACKUP-I-INVDEEPDIR, output directory [000000...] not valid for deepdirectories, try rooted logical
%BACKUP-E-OPENOUT, error opening DKA300:[000000...]TEST.SAV;1 as output-RMS-F-DIR, error in directory name
%BACKUP-I-INVDEEPDIR, output directory [000000...] not valid for deepdirectories, try rooted logical
%BACKUP-E-OPENOUT, error opening DKA300:[000000...]*.*; as output-RMS-F-DIR, error in directory name
$
$ backup test.sav/sav [*...]
$

So the only syntax of these three that worked was Steven's.

When I tried to clean these test files up, I found that $DELETE would not delete the eighth directory even with the above syntax. I had to create a rooted logical to get it.

Note that the error message for the first two is not the same as the OP. But I have gotten the RMS-F-RLF error trying to restore eight sub-directories before. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to hunt for the syntax that caused that error.

I wouldn't be surprised if Jack had a user that recently created that eighth directory. Maybe the "[*...]" syntax will work for him.

Kelly