View previous topic :: View next topic
|
Author |
Message |
meenakshi_forum Warnings : 1 Active User
Joined: 27 May 2008 Posts: 121 Location: India
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I need to know why Time=1440 should be avoided in production jobs?
Thanks |
|
Back to top |
|
|
expat
Global Moderator
Joined: 14 Mar 2007 Posts: 8797 Location: Welsh Wales
|
|
|
|
It should be avoided in ANY job as it allows unlimited CPU time to be allocated to the job.
Just imagine if the code gets into a loop |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006 Posts: 19244 Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Hello,
On well managed systems, jobs with time=1440 are automatically purged and not executed. The only exceptions are certain system tasks (like CA-1, database, CICS, etc).
There is no good reason to ever submit any application job with time=1440. Other than being extremely dangerous, it is downright rude. . . |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anuj Dhawan
Superior Member
Joined: 22 Apr 2006 Posts: 6250 Location: Mumbai, India
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
santy Warnings : 1 New User
Joined: 19 Jul 2007 Posts: 22 Location: mumbai
|
|
|
|
TIME=1440, is the maximum (Unlimited) time allowed for the job.
If you not put time parameter then some job execute for long time and might be goes into infinite loop.
to avoid that TIME=1440 is the best option. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anuj Dhawan
Superior Member
Joined: 22 Apr 2006 Posts: 6250 Location: Mumbai, India
|
|
|
|
Question asked
Quote: |
I need to know why Time=1440 should be avoided in production jobs? |
and this response
Quote: |
TIME=1440 is the best option. |
actually does not go with each other!
Suggest you read through the entire thread again and have a look on the given links. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
expat
Global Moderator
Joined: 14 Mar 2007 Posts: 8797 Location: Welsh Wales
|
|
|
|
santy wrote: |
If you not put time parameter then some job execute for long time and might be goes into infinite loop.
to avoid that TIME=1440 is the best option. |
Please learn to comment on things that you actually have knowledge of and understand.
Your comment is completely ar$e about face. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Garry Carroll
Senior Member
Joined: 08 May 2006 Posts: 1193 Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
|
|
|
Quote: |
to avoid that TIME=1440 is the best option. |
I would think that this was meant to read
"avoiding TIME=1440 is the best option."
Garry. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006 Posts: 19244 Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Hi Garry,
Unfortunately, "santy" advocates using 1440 to avoid the timeout.
Far better would be to either fix the code or run in the appropriate class.
With some of the slop that is being permitted these days, some people (when they are not prohibited) are using 1440 so their jobs won't time out. . . What nonsense
I'm completely in favor of these being auto-purged |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|