Hey all,
Where on IBM's massive web site can I find what was fixed on what
version of universe?
This thread got me wondering if some weird issues I have seen have
already been fixed on a new versions of universe (we are running on AIX
if that matters)
As well as what new features have been ad
This is on 10.2.6, released Aug 2007.
Issue 7659 was fixed in 10.1.14, released Aug 2005.
You'd think the fix would be in 10.2.6, too, but maybe it has reared
its ugly head again.
My description is not quite the same, but I am on HP. No select
involved. Executing a PORT.STATUS from another sessi
That seems to support the theory that something else is triggering that
wait() to go away, like what someone else had mentioned. I know that's
about useless information, but I'm in a uselessly opinionated mood.
---
u2-users mailing list
u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
To unsubscribe please visit
atform and has been fixed.
This might be of help - does it match?
Regtards
JayJay
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Eastwood
Sent: 13 February 2008 15:10
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Subject: RE: [U2] SLEEP 60 slept only 53 second
ary 13, 2008 11:53 AM
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Subject: Re: [U2] SLEEP 60 slept only 53 seconds, or else TIMEDATE() is
wrong
If you had a continue or exit in the code above line 439, it would speed
up the interval by skipping the sleep on line 439, and depending on what
that code was doin
If you had a continue or exit in the code above line 439, it would speed up
the interval by skipping the sleep on line 439, and depending on what that
code was doing, it could take a coincidental 53 seconds.
But you said there was none, and there are no double "top loop" lines, so
that situation i
> You might check the system logs; if there was a time server
> sync there should be a note in there.
We synch every 10 minutes at 0,10,20,30,40,50 minute mark.
That doesn't cover 15:05 where my 7 second glitch happened.
I ran a mess of tests overnight. About 200,000 iterations of
[time/sleep/ti
-Original Message-
From: Mark Eastwood
> I had a similar experience several years ago (10.0.?/Windows).
> What I suspect (but never proved) was happening was when I ran
> PORT.STATUS, it "touched" the sleeping phantom process and woke it up.
> It was of little significance to me, and never
rsued. You should be able to test easy enough.
Mark
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stevenson,
Charles
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 4:17 PM
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Subject: [U2] SLEEP 60 slept only 53 seconds, or else TIMEDATE(
You might check the system logs; if there was a time server sync there
should be a note in there.
---
u2-users mailing list
u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
> Maybe a sys admin changed the system time during the run.
> Or maybe the system automatically synced to a timeserver.
I'll check on that, but I think the synch is automatic and frequent
enough to not be off by 7 seconds. Maybe not, since this isn't a
production system yet.
---
u2-users ma
I'm going with the vote for a timeserver sync that someone else posted.
---
u2-users mailing list
u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
---
u2-users mailing list
u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
> Silly question perhaps, but are there any CONTINUE or EXIT statements
> in the parts you left out?
No, but think about it: even if there were, it could only SLOW DOWN not
SPEED UP the interval between executions of CRT TIMEDATE().
If you look at the line numbers, you'll see that there are no
Silly question perhaps, but are there any CONTINUE or EXIT statements in the
parts you left out?
When I worked on an AS400 about 10 years ago we had to have the time crystal
replaced because it was losing 2 minutes a month. Do computers still have
those?
-- Louie in Seattle
---
u2-users mail
I've never seen this before. Can anyone explain it?
I'm testing UV 10.2.6 on HPUX 11.23, Itanium & found this while
debugging a program that runs as a phantom.
The grep & cut of &PH& file below shows relevant parts of the file,
namely pairs of lines where
- pgm line 438 prints a time stamp
- pgm
16 matches
Mail list logo
