Thanks Ken, another issue took most of
today, but I think I can confirm TIMW
as the correct status for sleep().

My main problem seems to have been two
instances of the job running, so one
job was really mis-behaving and was
consuming mass CPU, and when ended,
all appears to have returned to normal.

[squeaky wheel got the oil]

The IBM site shows sleep() wants seconds
as an unsigned int, (Mark W. noted this)
so I need to change the program to pass
the value correctly (not as 3,0 zoned).

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ken Sims
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 2:14 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: TIMA cpu use VS DLYJOB

Hi Gary -

On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:17:13 +0000, Gary Thompson <gthompson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

After watching this job today, I think I've made some mistake . . . the
time spent in Status = TIMA seems way too short . . .

The program is coded:

Where IdleSec is a 3,0 Numeric (Zoned) value fetched from a data area .
. .

the data area currently has the value: 120

If the job should be sleeping for 120 seconds, then it should be spending most of its time in TIMW, not TIMA.

I suspect that sleep is expecting milliseconds, not seconds.

Opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of my employer or anyone in their right mind.
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at

This thread ...


Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page