I am NOT a shop sysprog so take this with a grain of salt but my *impression* is that the number of initiators, and the classes served, is a decision based on the "tuning" of various factors. The decision process includes the assumption that a job runs for some moderate amount of time, consuming CPU and I/O as it goes. When you have a job that "sits there forever" you upset those assumptions.
It's not that an "idle" job consumes some sort of precious commodity like memory or CPU cycles; it's that it constitutes a "mis-application" (if you will) of a member of a finite set. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of R.S. Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 7:53 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Check whether job still running > JOB2 will sit there and waste an initiator > until JOB1 (which is long running) ends. What a waste! Hmm... what is the waste? How much does it costs? I'm serious: what real resources are wasted? CPU cycles? Memory? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
