Michael Monnerie writes: > On Mittwoch, 5. April 2006 17:21 Justin Mason wrote: > > no -- it's not the tag-time that matters; it's the time that the > > mass-check started at, expressed in the UTC timezone. Â Because the > > "zmi" mass-check happens *after* 0000 UTC, it shows up as being in > > the next "day" period. > > I used to have this type of time scheduling problem the last time I > worked for a bank here in Austria: They've got lots of jobs running > over night, each at a fixed time. Because nobody knew exactly which job > depended on which other, they needed this. And they got problems when > some jobs only finished after another, depeding job started already. > For this, they had a special department searching the wrong transfers > and manually booking them back... > > In short: I'll swap the mass_check with my backup times. So mass_check > will start at 01:03 from tonight.
thanks! it is indeed batch processing, just like the 1970s all over again ;) --j.
