Re: Save while active, isn't -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: Re: Save while active, isn't
From: rob@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 12:57:39 -0400
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

I really think that save that took so long is a performance issue and as
soon as I got them to believe so, and they realized that they could pass
the buck on to the performance group, they started to agree with me that
SAVACT should not wait days on a lock before giving it up.

I also brought it up that if the SAV is waiting 3 days on an object, and
it's the first day or two, how do you know what lock it is waiting on?
After all, would WRKJOB OPTION(*JOBLCK) even show which IFS object a SAV
was waiting on to save? My impression is that command is limited to QSYS
type of objects.

Rob Berendt

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.