Re: "Stalling"

Neil,

In a message dated 97-05-05 02:14:15 EDT, you write:

> If you're looking at the save job from WRKACTJOB, then seeing 0% against
the
>  job, especially near the beginning of the job, is not unusual.
<<snip>>

It just seemed to be a strange coincidence that the other note about
"stalling" came out at the same time I noticed this on our machine.  The job
stayed at 0% throughout the save portion, and then didn't take over 2% for
the remainder of the job.  I'm used to SQL-based applications taking over the
system if you let them (especially when nobody else is on)!

I seem to recall that, prior to V3, when somebody cranked up a SAV, you could
instantly tell by the decreased response time and find them with WRKACTJOB
sorted in CPU% sequence.  Since I was debugging a failure, the 0% CPU made me
think that the thing wasn't running after my file was in place.  I just
noticed this due to the other note, as all SAV/RST activity is usually
performed with BRMS when I'm not on.  My case is probably just due to the
fact that the performance impact isn't as bad when you have a lot of memory
coupled with multiple processors and no activity...

Thanks (to Danny Mc? as well)!

Dean Asmussen
Enterprise Systems Consulting, Inc.
Fuquay-Varina, NC  USA
E-Mail:  DAsmussen@AOL.COM

"Money doesn't always bring happiness.  People with 10 million dollars are no
happier than people with 9 million dollars." -- Hobart Brown
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* This is the Midrange System Mailing List!  To submit a new message,   *
* send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".  To unsubscribe from     *
* this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify            *
* 'unsubscribe MIDRANGE-L' in the body of your message.  Questions      *
* should be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *