|
The problem with DLYJOB could be that a Trigger program is being evoked (outside the normal application) and that program contains a DLYJOB or the API call to do a delay job. Another option could be that there's an EXIT program being evoked and the exit program is doing the delay job. I remember years ago when the System/38 was around and IBM announced a new model that was "so fast" that when people got them installed, the actually put little delay loops (via dlyjob or similar) in their code to slow down the response times. The reason they did this was they didn't want the first group of users who's apps were moved to the new models to experience such great performance and then have them feel like the machine slowed down when everything else was eventually ported over. Gosh, that doesn't still go on now does it? After all, IBM does that for us, it's called Interactive Jobs or "speed bumps". :) Cozzi > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-midrange-l-digest@midrange.com > [mailto:owner-midrange-l-digest@midrange.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 10:06 AM > To: midrange-l-digest@midrange.com > Subject: MIDRANGE-L Digest V4 #411 > > > MIDRANGE-L Digest Thursday, April 26 2001 Volume 04 : > Number 411 > > > > This is the Midrange System Digest 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-DIGEST-SUB@midrange.com. > To unsubscribe from this list send email to > MIDRANGE-L-DIGEST-UNSUB@midrange.com. > Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: > david@midrange.com > > *** DO NOT QUOTE THIS ENTIRE DIGEST WHEN REPLYING *** > > Topics covered in this issue... > > RE: QCMDEXC > RE: QCMDEXC > RE: Surely OS/400 can host e-mail, can't it? > Re: full system save. Option 21 > Re: full system save. Option 21 > Re: Surely OS/400 can host e-mail, can't it? > RE: ScanMail messages > RE: QCMDEXC > Re: Surely OS/400 can host e-mail, can't it? > RE: Surely OS/400 can host e-mai > RE: ScanMail messages > Re: Surely OS/400 can host e-mai > RE: QCMDEXC > RE: QCMDEXC > RE: No 5250-based applications > Re: Surely OS/400 can host e-mai > RE: Surely OS/400 can host e-mail, can't it? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:23:03 +0100 > From: "Bull, Jeff" <BullJ1@Midas-Kapiti.com> > Subject: RE: QCMDEXC > > If I didn't know better I would agree with you. > > Jeff B > > - -----Original Message----- > From: Denis Robitaille [mailto:DRobitaille@cascades.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 8:24 PM > To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com > Subject: Re: QCMDEXC > > > Most likely, your rpg program is executing the CL command DLYJOB. > There is a > condition that your program is waiting for before continuing. > > Denis Robitaille > Directeur services techniques > Cascades Inc > 819 363 5187 > fax 819 363 5177 > > > >>> BullJ1@Midas-Kapiti.com 04/24/01 12:15pm >>> > Hi all, > has anyone come across this event and know of a solution ? > > I have a number of batch jobs with a status of ACTIVE and the function > DLY-300; > The programs being executed do not have this coded in them; > The program-stacks of all these jobs have QCMDEXC and QWCDLYJB at > the lowest > 2 levels; > They go active at the end of the wait, but then go to DLY-300 again; > There is nothing in the job log; > > Kind regards, > Jeff Bull. > Senior Support Consultant > Certified IBM AS/400 System Administrator > Midas Kapiti International Ltd > > Tel: 44 (0) 175 370 8224 > Fax: 44 (0) 175 357 0233 > Mailto:Jeff.Bull@Midas-Kapiti.Com << == Replies to > The views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are the senders own and do > not necessarily represent the views and opinions of Misys Plc. > > This email message is intended for the named recipient only. It may be > privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended > named recipient > of this email then you should not copy it or use it for any purpose, nor > disclose its contents to any other person. You should contact > Midas-Kapiti > International as shown below so that we can take appropriate action at no > cost to yourself. > > Midas-Kapiti International Ltd, Key West, 53-61 Windsor Road, Slough, > Berkshire, SL1 2DW, England > Email: Postmaster@midas-kapiti.com Tel: (44) 1753 573244 Fax: (44) 1753 > 570233 > Midas-Kapiti International Ltd is registered in England and Wales under > company no. 971479 > > > > > +--- > | 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 > +--- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:31:03 +0100 > From: "Bull, Jeff" <BullJ1@Midas-Kapiti.com> > Subject: RE: QCMDEXC > > IF it were a lock wait .. wouldn't the job status be LCKW ? > > Is it perhaps only a coincidence that these delays are hitting us when the > AS/400 is at its most heavily utilised ever ? > > It is like we are being penalised by a CFINT-like clone. > > Jeff B > > - -----Original Message----- > From: D.BALE@handleman.com [mailto:D.BALE@handleman.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 3:11 PM > To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com > Subject: RE: QCMDEXC > > > Assuming that the DLYs were the byproduct of a locked object: > > I suppose it's possible that you had one monster job (or maybe > several) that > had a lock on an object for most of the day? That's all it would take to > trigger those DLYs you've been seeing, if all of those "many > different jobs" > were trying to use the object that was locked. > > Dan Bale > IT - AS/400 > Handleman Company > 248-362-4400 Ext. 4952 > D.Bale@Handleman.com > Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur. > (Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.) > > - -------------------------- Original Message -------------------------- > ... but why would this suddenly start to happen to so many > different jobs ? > > Yesterday was a particularly busy day on the system with Disk-arm util% > through the roof - so I guess that locking waits could be the answer. > > It is strange that I have never seen symptoms like this before - on this > particular AS/400, or any others. Yes, I've seen DLY-nnn's before, but on > monitor or service jobs, not on application jobs. > > Perhaps today it will disappear as mysteriously as it appeared ? > > Jeff Bull > > - -----Original Message----- > From: Bull, Jeff [mailto:BullJ1@Midas-Kapiti.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 5:15 PM > To: 'MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com' > Subject: QCMDEXC > > > Hi all, > has anyone come across this event and know of a solution ? > > I have a number of batch jobs with a status of ACTIVE and the function > DLY-300; > The programs being executed do not have this coded in them; > The program-stacks of all these jobs have QCMDEXC and QWCDLYJB at > the lowest > 2 levels; > They go active at the end of the wait, but then go to DLY-300 again; > There is nothing in the job log; > > Kind regards, > Jeff Bull. > Senior Support Consultant > Certified IBM AS/400 System Administrator > Midas Kapiti International Ltd > > +--- > | 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 > +--- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:37:49 +0100 > From: "McCallion, Martin" <MccalliM@Midas-Kapiti.com> > Subject: RE: Surely OS/400 can host e-mail, can't it? > > Phil said: > > > Hey, check out what I got after posting the message below: > > > > Trend SMEX Content Filter has detected sensitive content. > > > > Place = MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com; ; ; MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com > > Sender = Phil > > Subject = RE: Surely OS/400 can host e-mail, can't it? > > Delivery Time = April 25, 2001 (Wednesday) 17:19:26 > > Policy = Sexual Discrimination > > Action on this mail = Quarantine message > > > > Warning message from administrator: > > Sender, Content filter has detected a sensitive e-mail. > > > > But it sent the mail anyway - it's below. > > But if you read the version you included below, you'll see: > > > The simple "CENSORED" instructions works the very best, > > So I went to my Deleted Items folder to find out what the horrific > phrase was. Are you read for this? Sensitive readers should look away > now (I've added some spaces to route around the censorware damage): > > "S e e D i c k & J a n e" > > Children's reading books will now have to be renamed to > "Non-gender-specific-anatomical-part and Jane". > > I'd say it was farcical, if that wasn't too good a word for it. > > Cheers, > > Martin. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:40:21 +0200 > From: "Eduard van den Braken" <e.vd.braken@hccnet.nl> > Subject: Re: full system save. Option 21 > > A screen transfered with TFRCTL is not allowed to do a SAVSYS. > > Groetjes (Greetings) > ==================================================== > Naam: Eduard van den Braken > e-mail: E.vd.Braken@HccNet.nl > ==================================================== > - ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Urbanek, Marty" <Marty_Urbanek@stercomm.com> > To: <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com> > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 5:48 PM > Subject: RE: full system save. Option 21 > > > > Chris, > > > > Maybe you could write a script for your terminal emulator, such > as Client > > Access, i.e. wait until the appropriate time, sign on, TFRCTL to > controlling > > subsystem, do a GO SAVE, opt 21, etc, etc, etc. With some > timers in there > or > > preferably error checking (depending on what the emulator > allows) to make > it > > reliable. > > > > -Marty > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 11:56:07 -0500 > > From: David Gibbs <dgibbs@verticalsky.com> > > Subject: RE: full system save. Option 21 > > > > > I would like to be able to schedule a job to run a full > > > system backup. Is this possible? > > > > Not really, as the full system save runs in restricted state. > > > > Some 3rd party backup products (Robot/Save is the one that > comes to mind) > > provides support to schedule a full system save. I think you > have to run > a > > backup agent on your console and it checks the time and takes the system > > into restricted state prior to trying to run a full system save. > > > > david > > +--- > > | 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 > > +--- > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:47:44 +0200 > From: "Eduard van den Braken" <e.vd.braken@hccnet.nl> > Subject: Re: full system save. Option 21 > > Most of the tools require you to log on to the systemconsole, and start a > monitor job (BRMS, Advanced jobscheduler, and AOS etc) > The jobs waits for an action in some kind of queue and then start > de ENDSBS > *all and SAVSYS etc. > > Some of these monitors, do the complete job for you, but if you > use BRMS or > the Advanced jobscheduler then you yourself have to provide a userid which > cannot break out of the monitor!! > > We now use a CL program which does a DLYJOB till the requered > starttime and > then does the complete save on the console. Using a special > userprofile with > *SIGNOFF and all the other restriction, only allowed to logon to DSP01 (Or > another name in the QCONSOLE systemvalue). > > - -- > > Groetjes (Greetings) > ==================================================== > Naam: Eduard van den Braken > e-mail: E.vd.Braken@HccNet.nl > ==================================================== > - ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris Beck" <CBeck@good-sam.com> > To: <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com> > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 6:39 PM > Subject: full system save. Option 21 > > > > I would like to be able to schedule a job to run a full system > backup. Is > this possible? > > > > > > > > +--- > > | 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 > > +--- > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:35:03 -0400 > From: Pat Barber <mboceanside@worldnet.att.net> > Subject: Re: Surely OS/400 can host e-mail, can't it? > > I was responsible for the transgression and will try to tone > down my responses. > > "McCallion, Martin" wrote: > > > > Phil said: > > > > > Hey, check out what I got after posting the message below: > > > > > > Trend SMEX Content Filter has detected sensitive content. > > > > > > Place = MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com; ; ; MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com > > > Sender = Phil > > > Subject = RE: Surely OS/400 can host e-mail, can't it? > > > Delivery Time = April 25, 2001 (Wednesday) 17:19:26 > > > Policy = Sexual Discrimination > > > Action on this mail = Quarantine message > > > > > > Warning message from administrator: > > > Sender, Content filter has detected a sensitive e-mail. > > > > > > But it sent the mail anyway - it's below. > > > > But if you read the version you included below, you'll see: > > > > > The simple "CENSORED" instructions works the very best, > > > > So I went to my Deleted Items folder to find out what the horrific > > phrase was. Are you read for this? Sensitive readers should look away > > now (I've added some spaces to route around the censorware damage): > > > > "S e e D i c k & J a n e" > > > > Children's reading books will now have to be renamed to > > "Non-gender-specific-anatomical-part and Jane". > > > > I'd say it was farcical, if that wasn't too good a word for it. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 08:51:18 -0500 > From: "DeLong, Eric" <EDeLong@Sallybeauty.com> > Subject: RE: ScanMail messages > > No, the original contained the phrase "Dick and Jane". The > scanmail product > just replaced "Dick and Jane" with "CENSORED" for your > protection! How nice! > Oh NO! I've just written a dirty e-mail! Somebody shoot me! > > (Is it just me, or does anybody else think the great "Richard and Jane" > censorship movement is seriously stupid?) Gotta protect our employees from > the evil deeds of poor Richard. What happens if your name just > happens to be > DICK and you can't get any of your e-mails because of that policy? > > Grrrrr..... > Eric DeLong > > - -----Original Message----- > From: James W. Kilgore [mailto:eMail@James-W-Kilgore.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 12:16 AM > To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com > Subject: Re: ScanMail messages > > > I think the original message contained the word CENSORED. > > Kevin H wrote: > > > > you really have to watch the content. > > > +--- > | 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 > +--- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:02:47 -0400 > From: Buck Calabro <Buck.Calabro@commsoft.net> > Subject: RE: QCMDEXC > > Jeff Bull wrote: > > >The HLL programs are not executing the DLYJOB; > >I suspect this is an IBM system function within > >QCMDEXC - at least that is what it appears to > >be on the face of it. > > I have never seen QCMDEXC delay for any reason whatsoever. It sounds like > you have access to the source code. Try to figure out what CL command the > HLL is trying to execute, and why. Good luck! > > Buck > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:42:12 -0400 > From: Pat Barber <mboceanside@worldnet.att.net> > Subject: Re: Surely OS/400 can host e-mail, can't it? > > The reference I used was " S e e D i c K & J a n e " which was/is > a 1st or 2nd grade level childs book. For those deeply offended, > my apology...... > > > > Leif Svalgaard wrote: > > > > your mail was clearly 'X'-rated. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:17:00 -0400 > From: D.BALE@handleman.com > Subject: RE: Surely OS/400 can host e-mai > > Ahem. The proper, politically correct way to say that is "See > Richard & Jane". > > How dare you use such dirty language! > > <what's the emoticon for "tongue-in-cheek"?> > > Dan Bale > IT - AS/400 > Handleman Company > 248-362-4400 Ext. 4952 > D.Bale@Handleman.com > Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur. > (Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.) > > - -------------------------- Original Message -------------------------- > > Hey, check out what I got after posting the message below: > > Trend SMEX Content Filter has detected sensitive content. > <snip (to avoid further "c e n s o r i n g")> > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:36:01 +0100 > From: mandy.shaw@Notability.com > Subject: RE: ScanMail messages > > Memo to self not to come and live in the US ... or maybe that'll get > censored too! > Good luck from a less politically correct zone ... > Mandy > > > > > > "DeLong, Eric" <EDeLong@Sallybeauty.com> on 26/04/2001 14:51:18 > > Please respond to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com > > To: "'MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com'" <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com> > cc: (bcc: Mandy Shaw/Pacific/UK) > Subject: RE: ScanMail messages > > > > > No, the original contained the phrase "Dick and Jane". The > scanmail product > just replaced "Dick and Jane" with "CENSORED" for your protection! How > nice! > Oh NO! I've just written a dirty e-mail! Somebody shoot me! > > (Is it just me, or does anybody else think the great "Richard and Jane" > censorship movement is seriously stupid?) Gotta protect our employees from > the evil deeds of poor Richard. What happens if your name just happens to > be > DICK and you can't get any of your e-mails because of that policy? > > Grrrrr..... > Eric DeLong > > - -----Original Message----- > From: James W. Kilgore [mailto:eMail@James-W-Kilgore.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 12:16 AM > To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com > Subject: Re: ScanMail messages > > > I think the original message contained the word CENSORED. > > Kevin H wrote: > > > > you really have to watch the content. > > > +--- > | 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 > +--- > > > > Regards, > Mandy Shaw > > Notability Solutions PLC > Kingfisher House > Frimley Business Park > Camberley > Surrey > GU16 5SG > UK > > http://www.Notability.com > Email: Mandy.Shaw@Notability.com > > Telephone: +44 (0)870 166 1000 > DDI: +44 870 166 1324 > Facsimile: +44 870 168 3920 > Mobile: +44 7710 447966 > > > > > > - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Catalyst Solutions plc. Registered No 2918101. > Registered @ Kingfisher House, Frimley Business Park, Frimley, > Surrey. GU16 5SG U.K. > > NOTICE: > This message is intended only for the named addressee(s) and may > contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the > named addressee you should not disseminate, copy or take any action > or place any reliance on it. If you have received this message in error > please notify postmaster@catalyst-solutions.com and delete the message > and any attachments accompanying it immediately. > - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:43:28 -0500 > From: "Leif Svalgaard" <leif@leif.org> > Subject: Re: Surely OS/400 can host e-mai > > From: <D.BALE@handleman.com> > > > Ahem. The proper, politically correct way to say that is "See Richard & > Jane". > > > > How dare you use such dirty language! > > > > <what's the emoticon for "tongue-in-cheek"?> > :-) Smile / Humor %-) Alternate Smile > '-) Wink ;-) Alternate Winking Smile > :-} Ironic Smile :-] Grim Smile > :-> "impish grin" :*) Clowning around > :-# Censored > :-* Oooops (covering mouth with hand) > :-! Foot in mouth :_) Tongue in cheek > :-( Unhappy / Sad :-< Forlorn > :-{ Alternate Sad (:-( VERY sad > :-| Disgusted (:-& Angry... > :-[ Severe Displeasure > :-X Won't say a word, lips are sealed > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:38:00 -0400 > From: D.BALE@handleman.com > Subject: RE: QCMDEXC > > I think the only way to tell for sure is to get a snapshot of the program > stack when a job exhibiting the behavior you described in a DLY-30 state. > > Dan Bale > IT - AS/400 > Handleman Company > 248-362-4400 Ext. 4952 > D.Bale@Handleman.com > Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur. > (Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.) > > - -------------------------- Original Message -------------------------- > The HLL programs are not executing the DLYJOB; I suspect this is an IBM > system function within QCMDEXC - at least that is what it appears to be on > the face of it. > > Jeff B > > - -----Original Message----- > From: Buck Calabro [mailto:Buck.Calabro@commsoft.net] > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 8:00 PM > To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com > Subject: RE: QCMDEXC > > > Jeff, It sounds as if an HLL is using QCMDEXC to do execute the DLYJOB > command. I've run across this in early attempts to deal with file locks. > The program attempts to OPEN the file, discovers that it's > allocated, does a > DLYJOB for 5 minutes and tries again. > > Buck Calabro > Commsoft; Albany, NY > "Nothing is so firmly believed as > that which we least know" -- Michel Montaigne > Visit the Midrange archives at http://www.midrange.com > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bull, Jeff > > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 12:15 PM > > To: 'MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com' > > Subject: QCMDEXC > > > > Hi all, > > has anyone come across this event and know of a solution ? > > > > I have a number of batch jobs with a status of ACTIVE and the function > > DLY-300; > > The programs being executed do not have this coded in them; > > The program-stacks of all these jobs have QCMDEXC and QWCDLYJB at the > > lowest > > 2 levels; > > They go active at the end of the wait, but then go to DLY-300 again; > > There is nothing in the job log; > > > > Kind regards, > > Jeff Bull. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:42:00 -0400 > From: D.BALE@handleman.com > Subject: RE: QCMDEXC > > Not if the application was testing for the lock. > > Another possibility that I didn't think of earlier is where a > record is locked > for update in another job and this job attempts to retrieve it from a file > opened for update; if the program is "smart" enough to code for the error > indicator on the CHAIN, it may be doing the QCMDEXC 'DLYJOB...' > at that point. > > Dan Bale > IT - AS/400 > Handleman Company > 248-362-4400 Ext. 4952 > D.Bale@Handleman.com > Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur. > (Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.) > > - -------------------------- Original Message -------------------------- > IF it were a lock wait .. wouldn't the job status be LCKW ? > > Is it perhaps only a coincidence that these delays are hitting us when the > AS/400 is at its most heavily utilised ever ? > > It is like we are being penalised by a CFINT-like clone. > > Jeff B > > - -----Original Message----- > From: D.BALE@handleman.com [mailto:D.BALE@handleman.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 3:11 PM > To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com > Subject: RE: QCMDEXC > > > Assuming that the DLYs were the byproduct of a locked object: > > I suppose it's possible that you had one monster job (or maybe > several) that > had a lock on an object for most of the day? That's all it would take to > trigger those DLYs you've been seeing, if all of those "many > different jobs" > were trying to use the object that was locked. > > Dan Bale > IT - AS/400 > Handleman Company > 248-362-4400 Ext. 4952 > D.Bale@Handleman.com > Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur. > (Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.) > > - -------------------------- Original Message -------------------------- > ... but why would this suddenly start to happen to so many > different jobs ? > > Yesterday was a particularly busy day on the system with Disk-arm util% > through the roof - so I guess that locking waits could be the answer. > > It is strange that I have never seen symptoms like this before - on this > particular AS/400, or any others. Yes, I've seen DLY-nnn's before, but on > monitor or service jobs, not on application jobs. > > Perhaps today it will disappear as mysteriously as it appeared ? > > Jeff Bull > > - -----Original Message----- > From: Bull, Jeff [mailto:BullJ1@Midas-Kapiti.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 5:15 PM > To: 'MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com' > Subject: QCMDEXC > > > Hi all, > has anyone come across this event and know of a solution ? > > I have a number of batch jobs with a status of ACTIVE and the function > DLY-300; > The programs being executed do not have this coded in them; > The program-stacks of all these jobs have QCMDEXC and QWCDLYJB at > the lowest > 2 levels; > They go active at the end of the wait, but then go to DLY-300 again; > There is nothing in the job log; > > Kind regards, > Jeff Bull. > Senior Support Consultant > Certified IBM AS/400 System Administrator > Midas Kapiti International Ltd > > +--- > | 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 > +--- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:55:01 -0500 > From: rob@dekko.com > Subject: RE: No 5250-based applications > > Or how about the Virtual Reality interface, as touted in the 'Net Force' > series published by Tom Clancy? > > Rob Berendt > > ================== > Remember the Cole! > > > > > Jim Damato > > <jdamato@dollargene To: > "'MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com'" <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com> > ral.com> cc: > > Sent by: Subject: RE: > No 5250-based applications > owner-midrange-l@mi > > drange.com > > > > > > 04/25/01 09:06 PM > > Please respond to > > MIDRANGE-L > > > > > > > > > > > "I believe that HTML, etc. will offer a better user > interface than 5250 in the long term." > > I'm torn between whether a web-based user interface is a worthwhile goal > for > all applications. Client-server was initially developed to serve business > needs that a terminal could not address. If an application needed the > ability to distribute and process data on the client, or a graphic > presentation that was beyond the 80x25 characters of the terminal it could > be a big win to develop a client-server application. Pointy-haired > managers > then dumbed it down to all applications. Data entry and flat inquiry > screens were converted to PC client apps. Developers put effort into > replacing functions that could not reap the benefits of client-server > architecture. Complexity was introduced to simple applications > without any > true improvement to justify the effort and additional infrastructure. > > I like to say that web-based applications are an apology for > client-server. > Part of the mess of client-server was the fat client presence on dozens of > PC's. The web centralizes the presentation software again. Web apps > support much of the business needs and benefits of client-server, plus a > few big benefits exclusive to the web. But for simple inquiries, > text-based > business functions, or data entry programs the browser doesn't provide any > benefit over the terminal presentation. It's really just a different type > of terminal. > > There are some who said that client-server was the way and the light and > that folks who left their apps on the green screen were going to be left > behind. Year later client-server apps are being gutted and > rebuilt for the > web, as are those green screen apps that were "left behind." Do you think > that technology has reached a degree of maturity that will allow web apps > to > EVOLVE into something better over the next few years? Or are green screen > apps, lingering client-server apps, and web apps going to be trashed the > next time the technology shifts. > > > "The challenge is in getting there." > > The challenge is getting there before something better takes its place. > > > I'm holding out for the empathic user interface myself... > > > > - -----Original Message----- > From: Nathan M. Andelin [mailto:nathanma@haaga.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 5:44 PM > To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com > Subject: Re: No 5250-based applications > > > While I somewhat agree with James and Scott (see their comments below), I > believe it's possible to reach a point where a reliable and full-featured > Web application can be deployed under OS/400 in the same amount of time as > a > 5250 application. Actually, this has been a personal goal of mine. > > When I reach that point, I want the HTML user interface to offer > performance > and productivity comparable to it's 5250 counterpart. I think that's > possible, but depends partly on IBM. It takes more CPU, memory, and > bandwidth to generate an HTML data stream. > > This may be the heart of the Interactive vs. Batch debate. If I develop a > Web application that offers functionality comparable to it's 5250 > counterpart, but requires hardware that's 20 times more expensive to > support > the same number of users, then people will stick with the 5250 > application. > > Or will they? Developers and end-users may simply migrate to > hardware that > offers better price vs. performance for Web applications. How > many iSeries > shops that have favored Windows over OS/400 for Web development? Would > that > explain the reliability concerns and higher development cost? > > If IBM drops the price of iSeries hardware to better support OS/400 based > Web applications, is IBM abandoning its traditional customer base? In my > case, the answer is no! I believe that HTML, etc. will offer a > better user > interface than 5250 in the long term. In my opinion, it's not just for > e-business. > > The challenge is in getting there. > > Nathan. > > > > From: "James W. Kilgore" <eMail@James-W-Kilgore.com> > > > > > We have a small number of clients (45) and we are a small company. We > > write what we can afford to write (5250) and our clients (also small > > $1M->$3M/mo) use it. > > > > Why? It's the lowest cost to produce and the lowest cost to purchase and > > IT WORKS! > > > Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 01:52:23 -0500 (CDT) > > From: Scott Klement <klemscot@klements.com> > > Subject: Re: No 5250-based applications > > > > > It's also a whole lot quicker and cheaper to develop a 5250 app. And > > they tend to be significantly more stable. (Especially if the 5250 is > > running on a terminal and not a MS-Windows-hunk-of-garbage-PC) > > > > Running 5250 saves us tens of thousands of dollars each year -- > and we're > > a small company. > > > > > +--- > | 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 > +--- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:55:00 +0000 > From: "L. S. Russell" <leslier@datrek.com> > Subject: Re: Surely OS/400 can host e-mai > > ;^ > > > <what's the emoticon for "tongue-in-cheek"?> > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:00:16 -0500 > From: rob@dekko.com > Subject: RE: Surely OS/400 can host e-mail, can't it? > > But you've got it all wrong. It was not censored for s*m*u*t content. It > was censored for sexual discrimination. > "S e e D i c k & J a n e" represents books which tried to force > traditional male/female role models upon children. The thought police > believe that this represents sexual discrimination in it's worst fashion. > > I hope that what I've just said above isn't true. > > Rob Berendt > > ================== > Remember the Cole! > > > > > "McCallion, Martin" > > <MccalliM@Midas-Kap To: > "'MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com'" <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com> > iti.com> cc: > > Sent by: Subject: RE: > Surely OS/400 can host e-mail, can't it? > owner-midrange-l@mi > > drange.com > > > > > > 04/26/01 03:37 AM > > Please respond to > > MIDRANGE-L > > > > > > > > > > Phil said: > > > Hey, check out what I got after posting the message below: > > > > Trend SMEX Content Filter has detected sensitive content. > > > > Place = MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com; ; ; MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com > > Sender = Phil > > Subject = RE: Surely OS/400 can host e-mail, can't it? > > Delivery Time = April 25, 2001 (Wednesday) 17:19:26 > > Policy = Sexual Discrimination > > Action on this mail = Quarantine message > > > > Warning message from administrator: > > Sender, Content filter has detected a sensitive e-mail. > > > > But it sent the mail anyway - it's below. > > But if you read the version you included below, you'll see: > > > The simple "CENSORED" instructions works the very best, > > So I went to my Deleted Items folder to find out what the horrific > phrase was. Are you read for this? Sensitive readers should look away > now (I've added some spaces to route around the censorware damage): > > "S e e D i c k & J a n e" > > Children's reading books will now have to be renamed to > "Non-gender-specific-anatomical-part and Jane". > > I'd say it was farcical, if that wasn't too good a word for it. > > Cheers, > > Martin. > > > +--- > | 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 > +--- > > ------------------------------ > > End of MIDRANGE-L Digest V4 #411 > ******************************** > > +--- > | This is the Midrange System Digest 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-DIGEST-SUB@midrange.com. > | To unsubscribe from this list send email to > MIDRANGE-L-DIGEST-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 +---
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.
midrange.com
