I would expect users to report it as a bug if they saw an outstanding WTOR with no surviving issuer.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Clark Morris <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 2:31 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: WTO for message that will require explicit deletion? [Default] On 3 Jul 2019 09:12:55 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main [email protected] (Seymour J Metz) wrote: >I would expect cleanup of outstanding WTOs for any address space, be it a job >step, a started task, a tso session of a Unix shell. > I would expect WTORs to be cleaned up but I could see leaving a WTO outstanding after the address space is long gone if the purpose is to make sure some entity (person, console automation, etc.) reads the message. Clark Morris >________________________________________ >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of >Charles Mills <[email protected]> >Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 4:49 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: WTO for message that will require explicit deletion? > >Thanks everyone for your input. Sorry for the delays in responding -- I was >OOO for a day plus. > >I am going to re-phrase this question and post it again. I am going to drop up >one level to the "real" problem to be solved. > >I *suspect* that my problem with DESC=3 not behaving exactly as I hoped may be >that it is coming from a batch program, and at end of step MVS effectively >DOM's the message. I am going to -- just as an experiment -- stick a one >minute delay into the program between the WTO and the return to MVS to see how >the message behaves in that case. > >Charles > > >-----Original Message----- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On >Behalf Of Tom Marchant >Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 8:10 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: WTO for message that will require explicit deletion? > >On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 16:07:29 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: > >>My "console" experience is with SDSF LOG, not a real console, so my >>perception of where messages hang is a little skewed I guess. > >That is not a console at all, and doesn't behave like one. Messages >that are not deletable (if the console is in RD mode), including WTOR >messages, roll up to the top but do not roll off the top when other >messages are issued. In SDSF outstanding reply messages are displayed >at the bottom of the the LOG display, in addition to their original >location. If I remember correctly non-deletable messages are flagged, >IIRC with an "*". before the message. > >As Dave alluded to, a console lines are a very limited finite resource >that has not significantly increased in capacity over the years. Even >back in the early 80's many shops ran their consoles in roll mode >rather than roll-deletable mode because too many programs issued >either WTOR messages or non-deletable messages. Even way back then, >when running a console in RD mode could cause the console to fill up >with non-deletable messages and no new messages could be issued to >that terminal, whether or not the new message is deletable. > >Indeed, when I started in this business in 1970 as a Cobol >application programmer running on MVT with three active regions, >the rule that DISPLAY UPON CONSOLE was not to be used unless it was >for an explicitly approved purpose, so as not to clutter the console > >I never worked as an operator, but in the late 70's to the mid 80's >I worked as an Amdahl Field SE and would sometimes be at a console. >Sometimes I would set the console in RD mode just to see what the >message traffic looked like, and was occasionally surprised with >how quickly the console would fill up with non-deletable messages. >In those days it was unusual to have much more than 100 address >spaces active. > >On the quite small LPAR that I am working at right now, there are 3 >25 started tasks active and 512 total address spaces. At the moment, >there are 11 WTOR messages outstanding. That in itself is half of a >24 x 80 3270 display (there are two lines for command input). Add s >ome products that think that it is important to issue messages that >stick on the console, and the console quickly becomes unusable in >RD mode unless messages are explicitly deleted. In my opinion, the >use of console messages, especially non-deletable messages, should >be kept at a minimum. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
