Scheduler Usage

Posted: **26 Sep 2007 4:50**

is it possible to create the same mecanism than GLOBALES COND for QUANTITATIVE RESOURCES ?
so that QR can be share beetween any control-m server if necessary ?
regards
Philmalmaison

Posted: **26 Sep 2007 6:09**

I support the request of philmalmaison:
are a request of all schedule environment were there is more then one control-m server.

For exclusive resources too !!

Posted: **03 Dec 2007 12:44**

The issue of globalizing them as being discussed for a while.
Regardless of the technical complexity and difficulty involved with implementing that, we are not that sure about the need.
If indeed that's implemented, the actual reality of it is that all separated CONTROL-M/Servers become one as each and every time a resource is released by one of them - it should be reallocated either locally or externally - depending on priority and other relevant business rules.

Technically, it means that each transaction where a resource is either allocated or released should have all CONTROL-M/Server involved and updated accordingly.
Conceptually, it takes away the independence of each server. As such, I wonder why are these CONTROL-M/Servers separated. Could it be for historical reasons ? If they can coupled at the resource level, why can't they be at the full wider scope ?

Your point of view both about the need and the concerns with respect to the outcome are highly appreciated.

Posted: **03 Dec 2007 9:03**

What is your evaluation about the maximum transactions that can be serve by controlm server, and do you think that they are no limitations about native controlm fonctionalities?
Because many clients are asking about it, when some "case" arriving without a very fast answer.
So having different control-m server can allow clients to share out them sensitives applications.
regards
philmalmaison

Posted: **14 Jan 2008 9:05**

BMC wrote:the actual reality of it is that all separated CONTROL-M/Servers become one as each and every time a resource is released by one of them - it should be reallocated either locally or externally - depending on priority and other relevant business rules.

Conceptually, it takes away the independence of each server. As such, I wonder why are these CONTROL-M/Servers separated. Could it be for historical reasons ? If they can coupled at the resource level, why can't they be at the full wider scope ?

Your point of view both about the need and the concerns with respect to the outcome are highly appreciated.

Thanks for answer, and good year to everybody.

All server control-m like it was one ?
No, this is not the bettere solution.
Servers are different for geographical reasons or application reasons or more complex needs like different New Day for control reasons, and so on.
The CTM servers is important that can maintaind the indipendency.
But different jobs on different servers cant run in the same time. For example some tables cant run when others are still running on others servers.
This is done with the global conditions, but the global resources can be more flexible method and more powerfull.
But I thonk to do a global resources like a global condition system: not all the resources shared but only that with PREFIX.
This resouces can by copied in the corresponding table of all related servers.

If the only solution is share all the resource on all servers: dont do it.

Thanks and have a good day