[Info-vax] Are queue manager updates written to disk immediately ?

[AEF]

On Apr 11, 3:27 pm, Simon Clubley <clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-
Earth.UFP> wrote:
> On 2013-04-11, Paul Sture <nos... at sture.ch> wrote:

> > In article <kk6s8q$39... at dont-email.me>,
> >  Simon Clubley <clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>
> >> Even if there was some queue manager bug caused by a power failure
> >> during some unusual tight timing window of a few milliseconds [*],
> >> that still does not explain the disappearing job from the submit
> >> command in the first job.
>
> >> Simon.
>
> >> [*] A few milliseconds maximum, because don't forget I have a _full_
> >> logfile from the first run of the job today.
>
> > That sounds like a small window in the batch run down code.  If you
> > think about it there must be a point between the batch job completing
> > and its return status being processed so that the queue manager either
> > deleting or retaining the job in the queue database.
>
> The problem with the window theory is that while it explains a repeating
> job, it doesn't explain why the submit from the first run went walkies.

"Walkies"? What's that?

> _If_ the queue manager is not delaying the on disk updates, then I wonder
> if I have come across more than one problem here.
>
> It will be interesting to see what HP have to say.
>
> Thanks everyone,
>
> Simon.
>
> --
> Simon Clubley, clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
> Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

Theory:

Space aliens. Please check your security settings and shields. (^_^)

I need to get your story down more accurately to do any better. I'm
really confused about which jobs ran with which entry numbers
according to which sources. Please try again.

At one place I wrote some DCL that would manage jobs. I don't recall
just exactly what it did, but I think that's what you need. I believe
others said that, too.

OK.

AEF