Oh, 2400 means unlimited? That's the format of JWT/TWT. I assumed it meant what it said--24 hours. I guess I can try that next, if necessary!
-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Mike Schwab Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 8:17 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Disable user timeout via JWT? 24 hours / 1440 minutes is unlimited, right? On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 2:36 PM Phil Smith III <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes. That's where we started this discussion. That only goes to 24 > hours; I want to turn it OFF. Don't even care about jobs, TBH--it's our box. > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On > Behalf Of Matthew Stitt > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 3:30 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Disable user timeout via JWT? > > I believe it is SMFPRMxx JWT parameter. I think that applies to jobs > also. The default is 30 minutes I believe. We have it set to 12 hours. > > Matthew > > On Wed, 14 May 2025 14:16:20 -0400, Steve Thompson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >About 10 years ago, I used a different way, via OE, to set a timer > >that wakes up after x minutes to then go to sleep for another y minutes.... > >(you can set the loop to terminate after some number of wakeups... So > >running ISPF this was started using > >=6 (?) in the active ISPF session as I recall. I seem to remember > >having to hit PA1 or ATTN to get control back. > > > >Since the TSO session appears active because of this minimal amount > >of activity, it will not get logged off until you cross the TIME > >limit. So if you have the SMF exit to keep that from happening..... > > > >Just an idea. > > > >Regards, > >Steve Thompson > > > >On 5/14/2025 1:10 PM, David Spiegel wrote: > >> +1 > >> > >> On 2025-05-14 12:56, Phil Smith III wrote: > >>> As I said, it's a dev system behind a VPN. At any given moment > >>> there are an average of zero users connected at the moment. If I > >>> connect to check something and leave my connection active, I'd > >>> like it to stay connected. There's no reason to force me off per se, ever. > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On > >>> Behalf Of David Elliot > >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 12:39 PM > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> Subject: Fwd: Disable user timeout via JWT? > >>> > >>> Is there any reason why idle users should not be forced off the > >>> system.? > >>> > >>> Sounds like very sloppy system management.to allow this. > >>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- > >>> From: Phil Smith III <[email protected]> > >>> Date: Wed, 14 May 2025, 15:02 > >>> Subject: Re: Disable user timeout via JWT? > >>> To: <[email protected]> > >>> > >>> > >>> Hmm. Still got an S522 overnight, so I guess that wasn't what you > >>> meant? > >>> > >>> TWT looks to have the same 24-hour limit as JWT? This is a dev > >>> system, we don't want users forced at all. Surely that's not > >>> unique, and doesn't require use of an exit?! > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On > >>> Behalf Of Phil Smith III > >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 5:58 PM > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> Subject: Re: Disable user timeout via JWT? > >>> > >>> I think I did #2: > >>> > >>> //DYNISPFM EXEC PGM=IKJEFT01,DYNAMNBR=200,TIME=1440 > >>> // PARM='%DYNISPF' > >>> > >>> That's in my logon PROC. Is that what you meant? Yes, I know very > >>> little about this end of z/OS (or most other ends). > >>> > >>> I did make the change from IBMUSER and then log off and back on to > >>> be sure I wasn't locking myself out! > >>> > >>> Is there a way to look at the time limit for a running job? I > >>> scrolled wayyyy right in SDSF and didn't see it. > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On > >>> Behalf Of Radoslaw Skorupka > >>> Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2025 11:16 AM > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> Subject: Re: Disable user timeout via JWT? > >>> > >>> W dniu 10.05.2025 o 16:33, Phil Smith III pisze: > >>>> Is there a way to keep idle users from getting forced off? > >>>> JWT in > >>> SMFPRMxx is documented as taking values 0001 to 2400. We have a > >>> handful of users on a development system behind a VPN and don't > >>> want them forced off ever. Is there an easy way to achieve this? > >>> > >>> Few remarks: > >>> 1. Use TWT instead of JWT. TWT is quite new (younger than me > >>> ;-) ). It is for TSO users. > >>> 2. Use TIME=1440 (or NOLIMIT for modern installations ;-) ) in the > >>> logon procedure. It disables both JWT or TWT. > >>> 3. Don't forget about TCPIP settings. I can't remember the name, > >>> but network folks like to drop inactive sessions. This is > >>> independent from JWT/TWT, TIME=1440 and other TSO settings. > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Radoslaw Skorupka > >>> Lodz, Poland > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > -- Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
