Ah, the dubious "joys" of working in an environment where quality
control consists of firing the one who appears to have committed an
error, rather than analyzing the problem and eliminating the root-cause
factors that could lead to the same error being repeated by someone else
in the future. I likely wouldn't have stayed at the same place for 32+
years if they hadn't had a better approach to quality control.
If it is too difficult to train your operators (or any employee) to
perform a process with 100% reliability, then it is the process that
needs to be examined and changed, not the operator. Having multiple
things in the same system with the same name when you care to treat them
differently is an obvious process-design no-no.
I can recall an analogous process-design error at the hardware level,
where IBM had both 120V and 240V versions of the 3174 controller with a
detachable power cord, no distinction in the cord connectors at the
controller end between the 120V- and 240V-cords, and we somehow ended up
with a mix of 120V and 240V 3174 controllers. The individual who smoked
and did expensive damage to a 120V controller hooking it to 240V during
a minor equipment shuffle was judged to be the victim of an error
waiting to happen (and continued to be a valued employee).
Joel C. Ewing
On 05/02/2013 12:03 AM, Ed Gould wrote:
DASDBILL2:
Yes I know about the option. My question is why would anyone want to
have it allowed.
Trying to resolve operator problems would be a nightmare.
How can a operator figure out which job to cancel?
As a follow on say operator cancels job aaaaaa and aaaaa is an online
system . The "other " job aaaaaaa was a was data base restore.
Both would be grounds for firing in a shop where I worked.
Ed
On May 1, 2013, at 2:20 PM, DASDBILL2 wrote:
Ed,
Duplicate jobnames are allowed or not allowed at the discretion of
the customer. There is now a parameter to allow duplicate jobnames'
running simultaneously. Those shops that do not want havoc can opt
not to use the new parameter. All shops are not identical.
Bill Fairchild
Franklin, TN
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Gould" <edgould1...@comcast.net>
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 10:24:03 AM
Subject: Re: Check whether job still running
Ed:
I am somewhat surprised that you indicate that duplicate jobnames are
to be allowed. I have worked in a few shops that job naming stand is
frozen and it would wreek havoc if a duplicate jobname were to be
allowed running at the same time.
Ed
On May 1, 2013, at 12:07 AM, Ed Jaffe wrote:
On 4/30/2013 8:25 PM, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
If you can live with JOB1 and JOB2 having the same jobname and you
use JES2, that will handle the wait since JES2 will not allow JOB2
to be initiated so long as JOB1 is executing.
This is true only with JOBDEF DUPL_JOB=DELAY. More and more JES2
shops these days are implementing JOBDEF DUPL_JOB=NODELAY to
provide function similar to JES3 DUPJOBNM=YES functionality.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
--
Joel C. Ewing, Bentonville, AR jcew...@acm.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN