RE: RE: CPI2417 Job message queue for xxxxxx/xxxxxx/xxxx has been wrapped. *** Additional Information ***

midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>   4. RE: RE: CPI2417 Job message queue for xxxxxx/xxxxxx/xxxx has
>      been  wrapped. *** Additional Information *** (dkahn)
>date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:54:47 +0100
>
>"Chuck Lewis" <chuck.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Tom. Yes, now that you mention that I seem to recall other
>> instances of this behavior at another job but that was a long time
>> ago and it happens so seldomly (thankfully !).
>>
>> So should I just end QINTER *IMMMED instead of *CNTRLD 300 ?
>
>No, because then you're giving no chance for jobs that can end gracefully
>to do so. You will simply be yanking the plug on them. And your job that
>does not end at all will almost certainly still not end, so you are
>unlikely to improve matters and will be introducing the potential to make
>them worse.

Good info in that post. One additional consideration based on how I interpret 
the question...

ENDSBS *IMMED won't resolve the problem that started the thread, AFAIK. A job 
that won't end, still won't end regardless of *IMMED or *CNTRLD for the 
subsystem. Nor will the subsystem end for the same reason as earlier -- it 
won't until all jobs within it have ended.

As Dave said, by using *IMMED, you lose the opportunity for jobs to end 
gracefully, at least for jobs that have benn coded to detect the shutdown 
condition. I pretty much _never_ use *IMMED unless I already know there are no 
active jobs.

(And I'd still like to see something authoritative so I don't have to rely on 
years of experience for this answer.)

Tom Liotta