Mark:
If the job had been started and was later put on hold while processing (as
opposed to being submitted on hold), I believe this is normal behavior. In
order for a running job to end *CNTRLD it has "housekeeping" to do -- it's
part of the difference between *CNTRLD and *IMMED. Even though the job is
held, in this situation it would be considered to be "running". That's
probably not IBM terminology, but I think it's conceptually correct. At
least I have seen it myself.
There may be a system setting which controls this behavior, but if so I
don't know what it is. If I have a job that needs to be killed without any
additional processing happening, I always use *IMMED regardless of the
status of the job.
If the job was never started, but had always been on hold, then this is
*not* what I would expect.
Darrell
Darrell A. Martin - 630-754-2141
Manager, Computer Operations
dmartin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 05/17/2007 11:34:27 PM:
We had a situation today that I thought should have behaved
differently.
A job was on hold. ENDJOB *CNTRLD was issued against that job. I
expected that the job would need to be released before it would
end. Instead, it released itself, continued running until the
timeout period passed (30 seconds?)
Is this normal behavior?
-mark
This e-mail, including attachments, may contain information that is
confidential and/or proprietary, and may only be used by the person to
whom this email is addressed. If the recipient of this e-mail is not the
intended recipient or an authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is
prohibited. If this e-mail has been delivered to you in error, please
notify the sender by replying to this message and deleting this e-mail
immediately.
midrange.com
