|
Neil, I agree with investigating excessively large joblogs for inappropriate logging levels, hardware errors or whatever else might be a problem. But leaving QJOBMSGQFL set to *NOWRAP means you are leaving your system open to avoidable abnormal ending of jobs. If you change it to *WRAP or *PRTWRAP you still receive notification of wrapping with CPI2417. The advantage being that you don't also have users asking why their screen died. -Steve Cotes -cotess@data-io.com > ---------- > From: Neil Palmer[SMTP:npalmer@NxTrend.com] > Sent: Monday, January 26, 1998 12:40 PM > To: 'MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com' > Subject: RE: CPF2526 - Job message queue for "Job #"/"User"/"Job > Name" can not be extended. Job ended. > > Hold on there. I disagree with the statement "Definitely change > QJOBMSGQFL to *WRAP or *PRTWRAP" without first investigating to see > just > what is filling up a 5000+ page joblog in the first place. > Take a look, you may find a series of error messages start around page > 2 > and keep repeating to the end of the joblog. > > A common cause that I have seen is a case where for some reason or > other > the system loses contact with the device (could be a PC, could be a > dumb > terminal) and starts looping and repeatedly logging the following > messages (or similar) to the joblog: > > RPG1211, RPG9001, CPF4128, CPF9999 > > When this error occurs, the interactive job is usually eating up all > available CPU cycles (WRKACTJOB often shows 90%+ CPU usage). At least > with QJOBMSGQFL set to *NOWRAP a runaway job like this will eventually > end (when it fills the job message queue). If you let it wrap it > could > just keep looping forever if no one notices it and kills it. > > (Of course, you could probably avoid this looping on a device error if > you do not set sysval QDEVRCYACN to *MSG or *DSCMSG). > > > ... Neil Palmer AS/400~~~~~ > ... NxTrend Technology - Canada ____________ ___ ~ > ... Thornhill, Ontario, Canada |OOOOOOOOOO| ________ o|__||= > ... Phone: (905) 731-9000 x238 |__________|_|______|_|______) > ... Cell.: (416) 565-1682 x238 oo oo oo oo OOOo=o\ > ... Fax: (905) 731-9202 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ... mailto:NPalmer@NxTrend.com http://www.NxTrend.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cotes, Steven [SMTP:cotess@data-io.com] > Sent: Friday, January 23, 1998 2:36 PM > To: 'MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com' > Subject: RE: CPF2526 - Job message queue for "Job > #"/"User"/"Job Name" can not be extended. Job ended. > > Chuck, > definitely change QJOBMSGQFL to *WRAP or *PRTWRAP. > Leaving it *NOWRAP leaves you open to exactly the problem > you had. > I prefer *WRAP, if you _really_ need to keep the messages then > use *PRTWRAP. > > - my .02, > -Steve Cotes > -cotess@data-io.com > > > > ---------- > > From: Chuck Lewis[SMTP:clewis@iquest.net] > > Sent: Friday, January 23, 1998 10:27 AM > > To: Midrange List > > Subject: CPF2526 - Job message queue for "Job > #"/"User"/"Job > > Name" can not be extended. Job ended. > > > > Hello All, > > > > We have users of third software that occasionally come up with > the > > error > > message > > > > CPF2526 - Job message queue for "Job #"/"User"/"Job Name" can > not be > > extended. Job ended. and the job they were running is > terminated. > > (This > > message at the end of a 5,816 job log...) > > > > From what I understand, what is causing this is "excessive" > logging of > > CL commands. > > > > I know there are several systems value's are involved with > this: > > > > > > Current Shipped > > Name > > Description > > value value > > > > QJOBMSGQFL (Job message queue full action) > > *NOWRAP *NOWRAP > > QJOBMSGQMX (Maximum size of job message queue) > > 64 16 > > QJOBMSGQSZ (Job message queue initial size) > > 16 16 > > QJOBMSGQTL (Job message queue maximum initial size) > > 24 24 > > > > > > The only one we have changed from the shipped value is > QJOBMSGQMX. > > > > There are also JOBMSGQMX and JOBMSGQFL associatted with the > JOBD but I > > don't really want to start "tailoring" things like that if > there is a > > good/safe "global" way to do this (i.e. via the system > values...) > > > > My question - is there any danger in changing QJOBMSGQFL to > *WRAP > > (i.e. > > looping jobs, etc) or is it OK to do this ? > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance ! > > > > -- > > Chuck > > > > > > _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ > > _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ > _/ > > _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ > Chuck > > Lewis > > _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ > _/ > > CLEWIS@IQUEST.NET > > _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ > > Indianapolis, > > IN > > > > "The opinions that are shown, are exclusively my own. All my > own, all > > my > > own..." and NOT my employer's (with apologies to Emerson, Lake > and > > Palmer)... > > > > > +--- > +--- | 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 MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com. | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 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.