Frank:
Example: We had a shop where jobnames (production) were strictly
controlled as (not to be too specific here) but if a job ran out of
sequence the options market would not open in the AM. Between the
operator keeping track of the job scheduler every body was absolutely
crazy about job sequencing. The ca-7 person was fired on the spot of
there were any errors. We had some close calls because of screw ups.
Add to that the complexity of several hundred jobs that were run
every night and not including jobs we sent out to our users for them
to process it was fraught with problems and everything was timed
almost to the second. We were a fairly large NJE shop and we
literally sent out 100's (probably closer to 1000) jobs for processing .
There was no room for error.
I had installed a new IPO and the JES2 people saw fit to drop support
for DLM on the /*xmit statement with no even mention of a ++HOLD. I
was notified at 445A and it took me 30 minutes to get there and
analyze the issue and come up with a fix. Our illustrious support
people managed to use it quite a bit and if it weren't for FILEAID
production would not have been on time. If I had been 1 minute more I
would have been fired.
Ed
On May 1, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
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very silly and outdated standard of having your user ID as most of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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
