RE: not allowing operator from end a specific job

[Evan Harris <spanner@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Tom

the subsystem will wait for a specified time limit (which I have a feeling 
might just be *NOMAX,,,) if you use end option *controlled (from memory 
this is the default) but ending it *immed will normally cause the jobs 
running in it to end in fairly short order. I too have seen many sites that 
do this rather than coding an end process for any background tasks or 
programs they leave permanently running.

Having said this I have seen jobs that did not end in response to an ENDSBS 
command but ended quite happily when the job itself was manually ended by a 
specific ENDJOB request. I have not taken the time to work through the 
various reasons this might occur.

I was kind of speculating that removing *JOBCTL would then remove the 
ability to use ENDSBS anyway (no manuals to hand and too late to go hunting)

Hope this helps.

Regards
Evan Harris



At 02:52 p.m. 28/06/2005, you wrote:
> midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> >  10. RE: not allowing operator from end a specific job
> >      (Walden H. Leverich)
> >
> >Just wondering, if you aren't allowed to end a job, but you are allowed
> >to end the subsystem in which the job is running, what happens? Not that
> >silly a question in this case since we're speaking about backups and
> >lots of places just bring down entire subsystems for backups.
>
>
> Walden:
>
> In general, a subsystem won't end until the jobs within it end. I suspect 
> that the subsystem will be in an end-pending state and then end when the 
> job finished -- don't know what messages might result. But I've never 
> tested this scenario.
>
> Tom Liotta