Frank,

Actually in some cases it isn't inertia.  Case in point is the shop where I 
spend much of my time.  The shop has multiple initiators of the same class 
running their DBMS's.  Because of this I can't rely on a single initiator in a 
class.  The DBMS's use dynamic allocation of datasets so I never know if a 
particular dataset is in use or not so I can't rely on my job sitting "waiting 
for datasets" (not to mention that would guarantee a call from operations).  I 
occasionally have need to perform some quick function while the DBMS is down 
but since it's a one-off I don't want (or need) to go thru scheduling or 
operations to stop their processing so my 5-second job can run.  I simply take 
advantage of the fact that the system won't allow duplicate job names and 
submit my job with the same name as the DBMS that I'm dependent on.  DBMS comes 
down for backups and my job slips in and does its thing without the operations 
staff or schedulers being impacted at all.

It's just a matter of using the tricks/tools available.

Rex

-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf 
Of Frank Swarbrick
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 12:41 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Check whether job still running

Why are people so insistent that having two same named jobs running at the same 
time would cause such havoc?  Do people really often have two jobs with the 
same name that do different things submitted at the same time with the 
intention that they need to run sequentially and not simultaneously?

This has been a peeve of mine since we moved from VSE to z/OS.  In development 
especially, unless we follow that what I deem to be a very silly and outdated 
standard of having your user ID as most of the jobname, having a job named, 
say, LISTCAT, would be very common.  And why shouldn't two jobs name LISTCAT be 
able to run simultaneously?

Even though we are a new z/OS shop, we have "old" z/OS (MVS) sysprogs who 
insist that we shouldn't activate the option to allow like-named jobs to run at 
the same time.  I just think its nonsense; its just inertia.



>________________________________
> From: Ed Jaffe <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 9:43 AM
>Subject: Re: Check whether job still running
>
>
>On 5/1/2013 8:24 AM, Ed Gould wrote:
>> I am somewhat surprised that you indicate that duplicate jobnames are
>> to be allowed. I have worked in a few shops that job naming stand is
>> frozen and it would wreek havoc if a duplicate jobname were to be
>> allowed running at the same time.
>
>Not sure what to say. This long-standing customer requirement was
>implemented in JES2 over six years ago.
>
>--
>Edward E Jaffe
>Phoenix Software International, Inc
>831 Parkview Drive North
>El Segundo, CA 90245
>http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
>email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
[email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

The information contained in this e-mail may contain confidential and/or 
privileged information and is intended for the sole use of the intended 
recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
any unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this communication 
is strictly prohibited and that you will be held responsible for any such 
unauthorized activity, including liability for any resulting damages. As 
appropriate, such incident(s) may also be reported to law enforcement. If you 
received this e-mail in error, please reply to sender and destroy or delete the 
message and any attachments. Thank you.



NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments and appended messages, 
is for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain confidential and 
legally privileged information.
If you are not the intended recipient, any review, dissemination, distribution, 
copying, storage or other use of all or any portion of this message is strictly 
prohibited.
If you received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by 
reply e-mail and delete this message in its entirety.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to