Tim, How did you change the description of "In Progress"?
"Rushforth, Tim" wrote: > Yes, we also change the description of "In Progress" to something > meaningful! > > I think the "?" was more meaningful - in our case the sessions are never > "In Progress" when we get this status. > > It would be interesting to know if anybody actually gets a status of "In > Progress" when there is actually a session in progress. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ted Byrne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: July 2, 2004 12:09 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Node just sitting In-Progress > > At 12:11 PM 7/2/2004, you wrote: > >Timothy > > > >This is one of my pet hates about TSM. > > > >A scheduled backup which is actually in progress - ie actively > transferring > >data between client and server - shows a status of 'Started'. > >A scheduled backup which started but encountered an error, dropped the > >session or whatever shows a status of 'In Progress'. > > > >Am I the only one who thinks this is the wrong way round? > > FWIW, This is a pet annoyance for me as well, and I'm a big fan of > TSM. The "In progress" status originally showed up as "(?)" which was > probably more accurate than what it was changed to. (I would mentally > read > that as 'Huh?'.) > > When we originally encountered the non-exceptional (?) status, which > certainly qualifies as an exception in my book, we chose translate that > into a status of "Incomplete" in the scripts we were using to report on > event status. After it was changed to "In Progress", we changed our > scripts to translate the new description to "Incomplete" as well. It > seemed to convey the actual state of affairs more accurately. > > I seem to recall that when I read the original APAR that was opened > about > the (?) status, there was a strong argument that this should be > classified > as an exception when using "q ev". This is obviously not what they > chose > to do. > > Curiously, the APAR describing the status change to "In progress" > (IC33373) > discusses long-running events, and uses "restartable" to describe them. > In > our experience, it almost always indicates a failure of the client (such > as > the scheduler service/daemon freezing or dying). I can't recall ever > seeing one of these events restarted. > > -Ted
