× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



Has anyone ever had to resize QSYSOPR?  Our application software is drowning
the operators message queue in meaningless messages.    The message full
action of *WRAP doesn't work when messages are hitting to fast to wrap.

I was gonna create a new message queue named QSYSOPRX in QSYS with either a
greater number of increments than QSYSOPR's or *NOMAX.  Then I was gonna
rename out the old QSYSOPR and rename in the new one, at a point in time
when I could log off the operators and get the queue out of *BREAK delivery.

Seems kind of scary to me.  I'm wondering whether I'd regret setting up
QSYSOPR with size of *NOMAX.  I'm also wondering whether there's an easier
way to tweak the size of a message queue.

Any advice or warnings?  Much thanks in advance...

-Jim

James P. Damato
Manager - Technical Administration
Dollar General Corporation
<mailto:jdamato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:

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

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.