Paul Gilmartin wrote: >I sense a gradual escalation here.
>Long ago, there was the CANCEL command so operators could terminate >troublesome jobs. >But a designer felt that sometimes the programmer knows better, and provided >the non-cancellable attribute. >Then a designer felt that sometimes the operator knows even better and >provided the FORCE command. >Then a designer felt that sometimes the programmer knows even better and >provided the non-forcible attribute. >Now someone feels that operators know better and is providing a WHACK facility. Not good. All involved must look why you need to WHACK it. For example, your job itself is waiting for a mount or is waiting for HSM to recall something, but there is a mount problem. Solve that, and you don't need all those fancy measures including a 222 abend. Ok, that is just one sample reason why 'WHACKING' or all those 'x who knows better' are not suitable. One example we got a few weeks ago was, a session was holding a CICS region. CPU% and region consumed climbed. Response times dropped on all CICS regions. Instead having WHACK down the troublesome CICS region, the network people simply VARY that session offline and all things returned to normal. No STCs were stopped at all. But, so, normally check all normal avenues, then escalate using more and more extreme measures as per Paul' suggestion. Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
