Hi Al,

Great to hear consensus on this one. The way I understand it is:

Let us use an example of generating a cheque (check). A batch job runs that 
generates cheques. This reads the record
containing the sequential numbers for cheques. The job runs at priority 50. Now 
some user goes in and wants to
interactively (manually) generate a cheque. The record containing the 
sequential number is locked by a lower priority
(batch) job.  The OS sees that a higher priotiy job is waiting for something 
that is locked by a lower priority job.
It (the OS) decides to up the priority of the batch job to equal or higher that 
of the interactive job so that it can
complete quicker. This will release the record eqrlier/quicker for the higher 
priority job. Yet, the change in
priority is not reflected externally (wrksysact, wrkactjob, etc.). 'How come my 
system has slowed down?'

Cheers.

Jan Megannon.



barsa@barsaconsulting.com wrote:

> This is a thorny issue.  The *JOBD per se does not specify interactive
> priority, it comes from *CLS.  However, this begs the bigger issue that by
> default, IBM ignores your request for priority, tells you that you got what
> you wanted, and then under the covers adjusts the priority as they
> determine will optimize work going through the system.
>
> Al
>
> Al Barsa, Jr.
> Barsa Consulting Group, LLC
>



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 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.