Joined: 26 Apr 2004 Posts: 4650 Location: Raleigh, NC, USA
Guys, for anyone who's used and supported the CA-7 scheduler for a long time, I've got a question for you. We recently switched from CA-Scheduler so there's no one on the staff here with a lot of CA-7 experience.
Our IT Best-Practices policy mandates that we create incident tickets in the problem management system for any event that requires a call-out to a support group. Since I'm in the Automation team, it's our responsibility to make sure that we trap the CA-7 "CA-7.SMF3 JOB XXXXXX (nnnn/nnnnnnn/XXXXXXXX) ON YYYY FAILED..." message from the console and generate an incident ticket from that event, and the IEF450I message for abends or JCL errors.
In the past two weeks, we had a job failure that failed to produce an incident ticket, and an incident ticket that was produced without a corresponding job failure. One was an SB37 abend. There was a CA-7.SMF3 ... message produced, but JES never posted a corresponding IEF450I message on the console. A few days ago there was a JCL failure incident created from a CA-7.SMF3 ... message, but again no other correponding IEF45xI message was posted from JES.
Turns out the first job that CA-7 reported as an abend didn't post the IEF450I message to JES because i didn't run in JES. Instead, it ran on another server via an agent. The JCL failure that CA-7 reported still hasn't been explained.
The shops I've worked in before here required jobs to abend if step return-code conditions were not met, which would in turn create an incident ticket and force a call-out to the support group. Now I think I see why they made that requirement.
Have any of you experienced these issues? If so, how do you accurately generate incident tickets? I'm thinking about proposing a change in the way we generate incidents, by NOT using the CA-7.SMF3 ... messages as our automation source, but rather by sticking with the automation for the IEF45xI messages only.