On 15-Oct-2014 11:28 -0500, Thomas Garvey wrote:
My reason for asking is that a process is sending a message that IBM
software 5761SS1 feature 5117 has 0 users authorized and 71 days,
etc. 5117 (on a v6 system) is supposed to be the High Availability
Journal Performance feature.
So the message is being issued by\from the job that is performing the
OPNQRYF, and transpires at the same time as the OPNQRYF request? And
that [still unknown] message identifier is being sent to the QSYSOPR or
to the QHST, or is logged within the joblog of the requesting job? If
the latter, then what is the full context of the messaging
[from-program, to-program, et al], all of which is available in the
spooled joblog when filtered with LOG(4 0 *SECLVL)? The F6=Print of the
message when viewed using F1=Help could instead provide the context of
the specific message, but would not also provide the fuller context with
regard to what might have transpired just before or after that specific
message that a log\joblog of messages might provide.
However, the process is not using any journal commands but has an
OPNQRYF command being used.
So, I'm wondering how an expiration message for a HA Journaling
Performance LP would occur when an OPNQRYF command should be
running.
Maybe the 5117 feature that is installed but not yet expired, was
referenced by the Open Query File (OPNQRYF) request because the query
feature had decided to take advantage of some support that the 5117
feature offers. While anyone outside of the query development within
IBM might not see any obvious reason for the query feature to have done
so, they are probably more informed of the potential capabilities that
the feature 5117 might offer to any particular query. Having all the
details of the jobs operating against the data access by that query, the
details of the physical file storing that data, and the details of the
other files in the database file network, might help to expose why the
query feature might try to access the capabilities of the feature 5117.
Journaling of any of the data in the DBF network might give cause to
the query to try to access some capability of that Journaling feature;
if an query Open Data Path (ODP) is update capable, and commitment
control is not being used, then possibly even more likely that the
capabilities of the 5117 feature could be applicable, such that the
Query feature might try to perform some operation using the 5117 feature.
However, even us mere mortals can figure-out what the query feature
is doing to cause the message to be issued, and possibly even infer why
the 5117 feature is being referenced. If the origin of the message is
either directly, or even indirectly, being issued due to something that
the OPNQRYF processing does, then the job can be traced to either see
what originating the messaging or to figure out what request caused
another process to inform of the reference to the [apparently expiring]
5117 feature. The library that supports the [apparently expiring] 5117
feature, or the information repository of that feature, possibly could
be made unavailable momentarily to help force the traced request to
better reveal the path that leads to an attempt to use the 5117 feature;
or just a close review of the invocations of the OS Software Product
Licensing (SZ) component and the timings of those invocations with
respect to the messaging could reveal that path.
It occurred to me that the LP that includes OPNQRYF might not
actually be in use or active at this client since OPNQRYF is kind of
ancient methodology.
As noted in other replies, the OPNQRYF is part of the base Operating
System (OS); no OPTION() nor any Licensed Program Product (LPP) being
required, beyond the LIC and OS, for an Open Query File (OPNQRYF)
request to operate properly.
Even if the OPNQRYF is directly responsible for the warning message
being issued, because the OPNQRYF requires *no* additional features to
function, once the 5117 feature is removed, the OPNQRYF would continue
to function. If not, then likely there is a defect.
I am unsure what is meant by that above quoted comment; hopefully my
prior comment, just above, resolves whatever concerns were expressed.
If not, I will try to elaborate:
The implication of the quoted comment seems [to me] to be that the
issue might have been perceived as being with a software feature that
provides the OPNQRYF, versus being seen correctly for what is the actual
issue. The actual issue being notified, is that there is an installed
5117 feature for which a lack of licenses\licensed-users will prevent
[after some days, due to an expiration] any reference to that installed
5117 feature. So while the implication is that the use of the OPNQRYF
is suspect to give rise to the described messaging [a warning about the
feature 5117], the _origin_ of the messaging is really somewhat moot.
Even if the OPNQRYF gives rise to such a warning\messaging, the base
issue remains, such that the installed feature 5117 is not generally
available for use. Either the licensing needs to be made available to
the installed 5117 feature or the 5117 feature needs to be uninstalled,
in order _to prevent all warnings_ of the impending loss of the
capabilities provided by that 5117 feature. Whether the warnings result
directly from some invocation(s) of OPNQRYF, are merely timed
coincidentally with those invocations, or result [in]directly from some
other [non-OPNQRYF] invocation elsewhere on the system, that "actual
issue" remains the same; i.e. the 5117 feature either needs to be
licensed for use, or the feature will become unavailable for use [due to
either the expired licensing or possibly someone having issued Delete
Licensed Program Product (DLTLICPGM), perhaps because there is no
intention of purchasing any licenses in order to prevent the messaging].
midrange.com
