Re: CPF3285 Damage File QAYPSYSTEM in QMGTC-offline

Chuck - thanks for clearing that up - it's good to know exactly how things run on this system.
Jim

----- Original Message ----- From: "CRPence" <CRPbottle@xxxxxxxxx>
Newsgroups: midrange.midrange-l
To: <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: CPF3285 Damage File QAYPSYSTEM in QMGTC-offline

Jim Franz wrote:

<<SNIP>> I have a 2nd question related to this, and to me it
sounds a little strange - this Save System issue has happened 2
months in a row, and both times the cpf3777 error of a problem
with the save is issued, and (because no one is in the building
at the time) the msg sits on the console (twinax), and both times
the default reply (C) appears in the job log 22+ hours later. I
can see the timestamp in the joblog. 1st month it was 22 hrs,
this month, 25 hrs later. I know if someone just pressed ENTER it
would take the default, but according to the manager, no one was
in the building either time. This is a 24x7 operation, except
Saturday noon to Sunday noon and once a month they start a Save
All (go save opt 21) and leave.

For years this has worked till this error. Is there anything in
OS that would take the default reply after xx hours? Nothing
monitoring the sysopr queue. No special schedule jobs. Endsbs
*all is successful. It is twinax and I wondered if a power blip
might in some way be seen as ENTER..? No power schedule jobs No
backup schedule jobs V5R4 w/cume thru 08183 (installing latest
cume soon)

FWiW, by default, an unanswered inquiry message sent to the
external message queue [i.e. to the workstation] will receive the
default reply after ~24 hours since the inquiry was sent. And
presumably the message was CPA0701 for an unmonitored CPF3777 sent
to the workstation versus to the *SYSOPR? Perhaps the noted 22hrs
reflects a convenience calculation of just the hours; i.e. possibly
the actual difference was more than 23hrs when accounting for
minutes vs only whole hour numbers?
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/200908/msg00530.html

Regards, Chuck