Re: idle BPCS sessions

["Genyphyr Novak" <novakg@xxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

Actually I would disagree with this theory. ALAUNCH jobs do not have a
tendency to 'run amok' all by themselves. Generally when a job 'runs amok'
it is looping in a BPCS program for some reason - duplicate records is a
common culprit. The reason the PC no longer responds is that the server
program is looping and it is not even at a point in the program where it
would talk to the PC - the PC then times out because it cannot communicate
with the server, and hasn't had a response from the server in X seconds, and
it disconnects from the server job.

There were problems 4 years ago (long since resolved by a BMR) with ALAUNCH
itself looping when it could not connect to BPCS. After those BMRs are
applied, if there is any job called ALAUNCH (as seen from WRKACTJOB) which
'runs amok' you need to actually use option 5 to work with the job, and view
the job's call stack - there you will likely find it is a BPCS program
looping, - often this is due to some data corruption etc., which you must
then investigate on an individual basis depending upon the program which is
actually looping. Sometimes there is a BMR for the program, sometimes you
need to remove duplicate records etc..

But the person who originally wrote called these 'idle jobs' and said they
were not using CPU, so I agree with everyone else's suggestions, and would
say that these jobs do not impact performance and have nothing to do with
looping jobs which disconnected from a PC.

Thanks,

Genyphyr Novak
SSA GT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Ozanne" <mozanne@midori-no-ryu.demon.co.uk>
To: <bpcs-l@midrange.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: idle BPCS sessions


> In message <169.d690e27.2a0c5232@aol.com>, DAsmussen@aol.com writes
> >
> >You are correct.  Inactive jobs on the iSeries/400 will lose their
timeslice
> >and not impact performance in the least.  The only risk you run is
exceeding
> >your "per seat" licensing, which can certainly happen in this instance.
What
> >sort of performance problem are you attempting to solve?
>
> There is (at least on 6.0.02 and 6.0.04) a tendency for the
> Client/Server ALAUNCH jobs to run amok if they get detached from the PC
> client session. This may be what was referred to.
>
>
>
> --
> Mike Ozanne