Re: Batch Immediate CGI =/= Interactive monster?

[Luke Gerhardt <lgerhardt@xxxxxxxxx>]

In the RPG I just use return when I'm finished, and I do not set on LR 
at all.  Is that also an appropriate means of getting the CGI to 'wait' 
for its next call?

In doing a WRKACTJOB, I see four jobs that now seem to have any amount 
of real activity.  The two smaller ones seem to stay in TIMW status most 
of the time.  After 3 minutes, these are the stats:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Work with Active Jobs                     
5Y573M-I
                                                            09/19/11  
12:59:13
CPU %:    71.8     Elapsed time:   00:03:00     Active jobs:   411

Type options, press Enter.
  2=Change   3=Hold   4=End   5=Work with   6=Release   7=Display message
  8=Work with spooled files   13=Disconnect ...
                    Current
Opt  Subsystem/Job  User        Type  CPU %  Function        Status
       MADEUPNME    QTMHHTP1    BCI    29.6  PGM-QZSRCGI      RUN
MADEUPNME    QTMHHTP1    BCI    27.4  PGM-QZSRCGI      RUN
MADEUPNME    QTMHHTP1    BCI     8.1  PGM-QZSRCGI      TIMW
MADEUPNME    QTMHHTP1    BCI     1.2  PGM-QZSRCGI      TIMW
       SUMTHINLSE   JSTME       INT      .3  CMD-WRKACTJOB    RUN
SUMTHINLS2  MRE         INT      .1  PGM-GENERIC      DSPW
SUMTHINLS3  NOTME       PJ       .1                   TIMW
SUMTHINLS3NOTME       PJ       .1                   TIMW
SUMTHINLS3NOTME       PJ       .1                   TIMW
                                                                       
More...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any obvious problems?

On 9/19/2011 12:44 PM, midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> If that's not the case, you've got something else going on...either
> the RPG is doing more than you think or the java script is doing
> something..the auto-refresh would be my first suspect.
>
> You say the auto-refresh is using a javascript timer, which is what
> I'd consider to be the right way to do this.  However, the high CPU
> behavior you describe sounds more like a loop is being used.  Even
> then, the loop would have to be on the i side, to see high CPU on the
> i.  If it was in the javascript, you'd see high CPU on the PC.