Re: Interactive Queries - again!

[Rob Berendt <rob@xxxxxxxxx>]

Wouldn't the CHGQRYA have the chance of affecting imbedded SQL, 
imbedded Queries, OPNQRYF, etc.  Stuff that you know is 'right'?  
But, if you just wanted to limit interactive Query/400 then you 
should look at the RUNQRY trick?

Talk about 'just knowing'.  We had a long time system analyst 
fill up 50Gb of disk and crash a 400 by running a Query in
batch and going home.  That was 50Gb of a 100Gb system.
Happened to be the same day the battery died in my pager.






tuohyp@ibm.net on 08/12/99 04:23:39 PM
Please respond to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com@Internet
To:     MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com@Internet
cc:      
Fax to: 
Subject:        Re: Interactive Queries - again!

Mark,

Prior to V3R1 this was about the only way of stopping interactive
queries from potentially killing the system. The introduction of the
CHGQRYA command and the QQRYTIMLMT system value brought a means of
controlling the interactive query overhead - on a job by job basis if
required.

IMHO Interactive queries can be of enormous benefit to users and we
should do our best to provide the facility.

Paul Tuohy

"Allen, Mark" wrote:

>
>
> Change the RUNQRY command so that it can only run in batch.
>
> Mark Allen
> MIS Manager
> Mattel-Murray
> allenma1@mattel.com
>
>      -----Original Message-----
>      From:   Bob Clarke           3rd x4502 [mailto:clarke@teri.org]
>      Sent:   Wednesday, August 11, 1999 2:16 PM
>      To:     midrange-l@midrange.com
>      Subject:        Interactive Queries - again!
>
>      Hello All.  I've been off of the list for a while and recently
>      re-subscribed now that I've once again had additional AS/400
>      responsibilities thrown at me - but it's nice to be back.
>
>      Recently an old ongoing problem has reared it's ugly head and
>      caused me fits - that of rogue users running queries
>      interactively during normal business hours.  This of course
>      results in numerous complaints about response time, etc.  As I
>      recall from way back then, there really wasn't a whole lot one
>      could do to stop or restrict these miscreants.  However quite
>      some time has passed (since I've been involved or concerned about
>      the issue anyway), and I wondered if there has been any new light
>      shed on the matter.  Also, we've since upgraded from V3r1 to V3r2
>      - any changes there that might help?
>
>      I hope I'm not beating a dead horse here - my apologies if that's
>      the case.  Either way, I'd appreciate any feedback (short of
>      anything resulting in insult or injury, that is).  Thanks in
>      advance!
>
>      Regards,
>
>      Bob Clarke
>

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@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
+---


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@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
+---