|
Hi Chris, That is a very elegant solution, and it uses the AS/400 the way it is designed. Of course, job description and class description, and the job queue, autostart jobs and prestart jobs have a lot to do with the way a job comes into and runs in the AS/400, too. These things all work together with the user profile and various system values and subsystem description parameters to determine the amount of time-per-second a job will get in the system, and what access the job will have (we use group profiles to segregate the production libraries from test/development libraries, for instance -- my idea). If it were in my power, I would make major changes to system security and performance settings, to optimize CPU, memory and disk storage utilization. But, our clients have had control of those things longer than we've been involved, and we are practically enslaved to the setup that has been in place since before some of the source code disappeared. Reprogramming it all would be too expensive, it seems, and fraught with "gotcha's" that we would rather not suffer uncovering. What I said was, "The way we have handled ...", which is a little misleading. I should have put it another way, since it isn't the way I would have handled these issues if I had my 'druthers. I like your solution better, but of all the client machines I've handled since getting into consulting, I haven't seen anyone who does things quite that way. Most clients have preferred to let Operations deal with jobs, using job priority and timeslice values to control CPU allocation, and changing memory pools (when necessary) to control memory usage. It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that two things tend to control these sorts of situations. 1) Most people who have control of how AS/400's are set up are programmers or administrative people who really don't have a fully-orbed knowledge of the features and functions of the AS/400, or how to utilize them in the simple, elegant ways such as the one you have mentioned. 2) Lots of installations depend on legacy programming, which is generally too complex to modify easily or cheaply. The cost especially seems to prohibit very much change. Well, duh! My first involvement with an AS/400 was a little unique. June 1, 1990, I came into a company never having seen an AS/400 before, was given QSECOFR access and all the manuals, and told, "Learn all you can learn." I had never even heard of RPG before. That B30 was the production system for the whole company (roughly 80 souls), and I had full access to it as though it were my own PC. The applications had been simply re-compiled from an S/36 installation in the Far East; it was veeerrry simple, as it was designed to handle one factory warehouse. This installation, though, was a public warehouse. After nearly 3 years, most of which was as a one-man shop, I had re-programmed most of the WMS including cycle-counts and inventories, all of the EDI (hard-coded in RPG), added many features to the shipping/receiving operations including bar-coding (with T L Ashford software and Zebra printers, as it happens), RF devices, and context-sensitive help panels from the new, native menus on down, and practically automated the whole operation. In that instance, we used all the features and functions the AS/400 has to offer (batch automation with data queues, journalling and commitment control, etc.), and I was its Daddy. In addition, we upgraded the OS several times, and the hardware twice. In that installation, we did use routing entries, class and job descriptions, and everything else that can make a system hum securely on its own. I came in with no preconceptions whatever, but followed the manuals and gave it all the time it needed. By the way, I am not putting anyone down with these remarks. I only intend to express an honest view, and am not pointing fingers. And none of this is intended to be taken as "advocating," since the company I work for is BY NO MEANS an advocate for IBM or the AS/400. And it is my firm belief that, no matter how hard it is, any system can be made to work. ;D Richard Allan Stauch System Engineer, EDS * (562) 809-4861 (Voice) * (562) 860-8506 (Fax) * richard.stauch@eds.com (E-mail) -----Original Message----- From: Chris Roberts [mailto:bpcs@cryonix.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 4:16 PM To: BPCS-L@midrange.com Subject: RE: AS/400 Report Writers We traditionally use subsystem routing entries for this type of situation. It also helps us when scheduling jobs to run outside of BPCS that need to run SYS664 for key initialization. Minimum disruption to the developers and just a system technical change so not as much validation documentation required... Chris. -- Chris Roberts. mailto:bpcs@cryonix.demon.co.uk http://www.cryonix.demon.co.uk Ealing, London, United Kingdom. +--- | This is the BPCS Users Mailing List! | To submit a new message, send your mail to BPCS-L@midrange.com. | To subscribe to this list send email to BPCS-L-SUB@midrange.com. | To unsubscribe from this list send email to BPCS-L-UNSUB@midrange.com. | Questions should be directed to the list owner: dasmussen@aol.com +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.