RE: TIMA cpu use VS DLYJOB

Thanks Ken, another issue took most of
today, but I think I can confirm TIMW
as the correct status for sleep().

My main problem seems to have been two
instances of the job running, so one
job was really mis-behaving and was
consuming mass CPU, and when ended,
all appears to have returned to normal.

[squeaky wheel got the oil]

The IBM site shows sleep() wants seconds
as an unsigned int, (Mark W. noted this)
so I need to change the program to pass
the value correctly (not as 3,0 zoned).



-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ken Sims
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 2:14 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: TIMA cpu use VS DLYJOB

Hi Gary -

On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:17:13 +0000, Gary Thompson <gthompson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

After watching this job today, I think I've made some mistake . . . the
time spent in Status = TIMA seems way too short . . .

The program is coded:
sleep(IdleSec);

Where IdleSec is a 3,0 Numeric (Zoned) value fetched from a data area .
. .

the data area currently has the value: 120

If the job should be sleeping for 120 seconds, then it should be spending most of its time in TIMW, not TIMA.

I suspect that sleep is expecting milliseconds, not seconds.

Ken
Opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of my employer or anyone in their right mind.
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.