The reason I would do a $PJES2 is to prevent new work from starting. If you know that the end of the world is imminent, the less still running the better. Otherwise you could have all manner of tasks kicking off at a really unfortunate time. Maybe a simple $P would be even better just to turn off the input spigot. You could countermand that action by a simple $S to get something critical (and short!) to run before you pull the plug.
. . . JO.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 626-302-7535 Office 323-715-0595 Mobile [EMAIL PROTECTED] IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU> wrote on 12/06/2005 10:47:12 PM: > >$PJES2 will most certainly never complete, but it will prevent any new > >tasks from starting. I would NOT do a TERM because you lose all control > > >at that point. > > From experience on education systems I'd say the $PJES2 isn't even > necessary. I've always seen JES2 stopping after the V XCF OFF before > the final 0A2 arrived. This makes me belive JES2 is one of the (few?) > products that listens for the forthcoming offline that XCF communicates > and then terminates in a clean quick manner. > > <caution> > The case above does by no means reflect real life situations, since > no (or almost no) work was going on on those systems when doing the > V XCF OFF. > </caution> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
