We almost exclusively use DISP=SHR, for better or worse...

Our JES2 instances are not shared.  We have a Sysplex with only three LPARs, 
one for prod, one for dev/test and one sandbox.  So I don't think we can have 
the issue you described.

Honestly, I don't understand why people seem to be wanting me to justify the 
current behavior.  I am not at all wanting to justify it.  I am wanting to 
change it.  I just need to find out what jobs are depending on it.  Hopefully 
not many!
________________________________
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of 
Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 3:51 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: JES2 DUPL_JOB parameter

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 22:20:15 +0000, Frank Swarbrick wrote:

>I know for a fact that we have some jobs that depend on DELAY, because I 
>turned on NODELAY and it caused an issue.  Two jobs with the same name are 
>submitted at the same time (or one after the other), where job 1 copies a file 
>to a second file, and job 2 copies the second file to a third file.  With 
>NODELAY they ran "at the same time" so the copy from file 2 to file 3 failed 
>because the copy from 1 to 2 was still running.
>
Shouldn't SYSDSN ENQ resolve this?

Or did job 1 carelessly write with DISP=SHR?

(Were these Classic data sets or UNIX files?)

Would DSENQSHR alleviate or aggravate the misbehavior?

>That's why I want to be able detect this and make changes before going back to 
>NODELAY.
>
And you might need to deal with ambiguity in operator commands.

And there's no guarantee that jobs will run in the order submitted.

--
gil

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to