Re: Overflow in the activation mark counter -- MIDRANGE-L

Is IBM going to do anything about this? Seems like a bug. But this
'low-order' vs. full task ID has been around for a long time, I'd say, it
shows up in a lot of PEX reports.

But it's another good reason not to use the default for activation group,
*NEW. Why this is the default is beyond me., as it has performance
problems, and now it can even kill jobs, apparently. Make a copy of CRTPGM
into your own system library (above QSYS) and change its default.

At 04:42 PM 3/26/02 -0500, you wrote:
>I apologize for the length of this email in advance.
>
>We got a surprise while testing our month end process on our development
>machine which we recently upgraded to V5R1; We got the following error:
>
>50    03/25/02   13:28:14   QWTPITPP       QSYS        0695     *EXT
>
>   Message . . . . :   Job ended abnormally because of error code MCH3203.
>
>   Cause . . . . . :   The job was ended by the system because an error was
>
>     found, and the job was in a condition where the process default
>exception
>     handler (QMHPDEH) could not be given control. The system will not give
>
>     control to QMHPDEH when the job is in between the starting phase and the
>
>     problem phase, or between the problem phase and the ending phase. Some
>of
>     the more common error codes and their meanings follow:... MCH3203 - A
>machine
>     function check occurred.  The most likely cause is that the program
>stack
>     for a routing step was nested too deeply....
>
>Our production machine running at V4R5 is handling this job just fine.
>IBM's response so far is as follows (Edited for length):
>
>The error is due to overflow in the activation mark counter for the job
>(each job has one such counter).  Within a job, each activation group,
>program (re)activation and service program (re)activation uses an
>activation mark which is an integer ID unique within that job.  As of V4R5
>and V5R1, at the SLIC level the counter is an 8-byte integer, while at the
>MI level only the 4 low-order bytes are used...
>
>This scenario will typically appear in very large, long-running jobs,
>typically server jobs or batch jobs processing large amounts of data.
>Suggestions on avoiding this problem revolve around reducing usage of
>activation marks to ensure the counter does not overflow:
>  o   Avoid running programs in activation group *NEW unless there is a
>      functional reason to do so.
>  o   Avoid deactivating/reactivating programs unnecessarily (for example,
>      in ILE RPG turn the LR indicator on only when it is really necessary;
>      otherwise, use RETURN).
>  o   Split up data processing into multiple smaller jobs, if viable.
>
>  o   End/restart server jobs as needed."
>
>Am I to believe that due to an UPGRADE of the operating system that a very
>long running process might blow up while they worked fine in the past?
>
>Did I mention that this is an interactive job!  Look, I didn't write it, I'm
>just here helping out.  If it matters:  The machine this works on is a
>9406-820 at V4R5.  The machine it does not work on is 9406-170 at V5R1.
>
>I thought large running data intensive processing was a strong suit of our
>mighty AS/400....er..iSeries.  Anybody else ever run into this?
>
>David Smith
>Advanced Information Solutions, Inc.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
>To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
>visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
>or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
>Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
>at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.