Data loss in the sequential file when job aborts

ray.wurlod · Post by **ray.wurlod** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:32 am

Why should the job abort? Kill anyone who stops it manually; we find that this prevents a second offence.

ray.wurlod · Post by **ray.wurlod** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:37 am

This is a stupid requirement. What if the job aborts and you can not write to the sequential file because the disk has filled? There is no way that you can avoid "data loss in the sequential file" in this case.

Resist stupid requirements.

MarkB · Post by **MarkB** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:59 am

ray.wurlod wrote:Why should the job abort? Kill anyone who stops it manually; we find that this prevents a second offence.

... and subsequent offenses as well. :D

Additionally, I would revisit those who wrote these 'specs' and give them a dose of reality.