On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 19:10 -0500, Craddock, Chris wrote: > What you're trying to do is pretty dangerous and the risk is certainly > not outweighed by the little bit of cpu time that might be consumed > while you ask the operator.
I wonder if this was a common way of operating in a past age. A few years back I found a customer doing likewise with a WTOR in UTL - apparently expecting the task(s) in the address space in question to be non-dispatchable whilst the exit was in play and had a WTO(R) outstanding. I got called in because the address space kept burning CPU - several hours worth in one case when the protein robots were less than fully attentive for a while. Not the customers (or my) idea of a "little bit of cpu time". Rather than attempt something like Yves, we went with just allowing the WLM policy and initiator time limits handle things. Prod batch was allowed to proceed unmolested (because it never hit UTL for CPU expiration) - user batch got unilaterally cancelled if it was in the wrong class and used too much CPU for the performance profile it was designated. Complaints were curtly dealt with. Rules is rules ... Shane ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
