On Fri, 18 May 2007 16:30:43 -0400, Farley, Peter x23353 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I do realize that it is most probably to avoid an ENQ "deadly embrace" >somewhere along the line, but for the life of me (well, and maybe because >it's Friday) I can't think why a DSN ENQ would be JOB scope instead of STEP >scope. At least not by default, anyway. > If all ENQs now performed with job scope were performed with job step scope, the "deadly embrace" would equally well be avoided.
>I suppose if you create a dataset in step A and then use it DISP=SHR in step >B (or F or Z, way down the line), if it were not JOB scope ENQueued some >other job could come in-between your create and use steps and delete it on >you, or update it in some clever but unscrupulous way, but I really can't >think of a scenario that means JOB scope ENQ's are required. > Additionally, there's initiator hogging, where one job holds a resource and other jobs are waiting for it, each monopolizing an an initiator. While job scope ENQs are no less susceptible to initiator hogging than job step scope (perhaps even more), it may become necessary for an operator to cancel, reset, and restart jobs in order to resume the work flow. This is more safely done if the wait occurs before Step 1 than between steps 41 and 42. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
