RE: Terminating an idle batch job

[Jim Damato <jdamato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The Lawson jobs may not be performing useful tasks.  They're the interface
jobs providing the link from and to the client sessions.  Sometimes the
client can get lost and the jobs can sit out there providing a link from and
to nothing.  I think that Trevor's looking to identify purposeless
disconnected jobs.  He could also be looking for a way to kill idle Lawson
connections much like interactive inactivity timeout for 5250 sessions.

-Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: pam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 8:51 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Terminating an idle batch job


In the Lawson case, it sounds like the batch jobs are performing a useful 
function. They are not idle, they are waiting for the next task. They 
should be left alone. Your customer would be in a stronger position to 
defend them if you could identify what function each job is performing. As 
for the company policy itself, I suspect it's either being defined or 
communicated poorly. I would expect terminating idle jobs applies only to 
interactive sessions going unattended, which constitutes a security risk. 

For the Baan case, you've got a porfolio of options from the others about 
how to address that.

Good luck with both.