Page 1 of 1

Running Multiple jobs simutaneously in a sequencer

Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:23 pm
by als110
We have a few sequencers where it does not matter if multipe jobs run at the same time. When we try to do this however, data stage only runs one job in the sequence at a time. Does anyone have any suggestions.

The sequence looks as follows


3
1 > 2 > > 5
4

All this does is to run 3 then it runs 4 they run fine but it would be nice to have them both run at the same time.

thanks

Aaron

Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:28 pm
by T42
Are you using the sequencer stage?

Code: Select all

A ----+
       |
B -----S--->
       |
C ----+
S is the sequencer stage here. The Sequencer should kick off Job A, B, and C at the same time.

Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 6:14 pm
by als110
No we are using routine activities to call the jobs

Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:07 pm
by chulett
Why use a Routine Activity stage to do that when there is a specific Job Activity stage available? :?

If you lay it out like T42 showed, running the three links into a Sequencer set to 'All' with your other jobs downstream from there, the three jobs will run simultaneously and will only move onto the fourth job when all three have finished.

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 8:38 am
by chucksmith
So if you want to run routine, create a sequence that only runs the routine, and then call this new sequencer using a JobActivity stage in your current sequencer, as T42 described.

ROUTINE ACTIVITY STAGES RUN SERIALLY IN SEQUENCERS, REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU DRAW YOUR LINKS!

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:01 am
by roy
Hi,
How ever you may look at it running multiple processes from 1 process can't be truely parallel, so the job sequence runs 1 process (not waiting for it to finish) then the 2nd one, 3rd .... and if it needs to wait for any job at a givven point (i.e. at the end of the job flow) it will then wait for all activities to finish.
so if by the time you get to start your 2nd job if the 1st is already done you might get what was described by the original post.

now if those routines fire jobs without waiting for them to finish this might even be the expected behaviour for short routines.

IHTH,