Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

(Delete File on Unix?) Re: Filewatcher Question

Expand Messages
  • jmchannell
    the max_age parameter may assist in what you need to do. From some notes before it actually was implemented into 6.2 A new parameter will be available for the
    Message 1 of 16 , Jun 1, 2007
      the max_age parameter may assist in what you need to do. From some
      notes before it actually was implemented into 6.2

      A new parameter will be available for the <CREATE> mode. This
      parameter name will be <MAX_AGE>. This parameter behavior will be
      opposite to the way the <MIN_AGE> parameter works.
      The default value of this parameter will be "0". It means that when
      the FW starts, it will check the file "modified" timestamp and when
      the timestamp is changed, the FW will exit (or perform the rule
      activity).
      If the <MAX_AGE> parameter value will be set for example to 3min, the
      FW will check if the file was changed since 3 minutes ago. If it was
      changed, the FW will exit (or perform the rule action). Otherwise it
      will continue monitoring it until it is changed.

      Hope it helps,
      James

      --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com, "respahn2000" <respahn@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Oh, I will have to check the Fix Pack notes out then; however, we
      watch
      > for multiple transactions throughout any given day, so it would also
      > have to include TIME stamp.
      >
      > Thanks for the info ... not sure how I missed that in the FP notes.
      >
      > Rebekah
      >
      > --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com, "dreamland95" <dreamland95@>
      wrote:
      > >
      > > I believe the 6.2.01 Fix Pack 1 (or higher) agent has some
      options to
      > > be able to check for change in date stamp. We had to change to
      that
      > > agent for a few servers where users had a similar situation to
      yours.
      > > It's in the Release Notes for CONTROL-M/Agent for UNIX and
      Microsoft
      > > Windows Version 6.2.01 Fix Pack 1 document.
      > >
      > > Hope that helps.
      > >
      > > Thanks,
      > >
      > > David Gray
      > > HSBC
      > >
      > > --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com, "respahn2000" respahn@ wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Hi Pat!
      > > >
      > > > My FW jobs (EM 6.2.0.100) 'watch' then trigger an EFT on the
      > mainframe
      > > > (Control-M). You're not saying that instead of that Control-M
      job
      > > > triggering a job back on EM to archive (using a .bat) the
      > transaction
      > > > file so FW can start 'watching again' can be done with this
      > %%POSTCMD
      > > > command, are you? Man, that would be awesome, if this can be
      done.
      > > >
      > > > Well, and I mean that in the sense that I wouldn't have to have
      the
      > > > client teams create this .bat script to do this, if FW utility
      would
      > do
      > > > it behind the scenes. Know what I mean? The less you have to
      explain
      > to
      > > > them, the better!
      > > >
      > > > Rebekah
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com, "Pat Hicok" <PHicok@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Laurie,
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > So don't have them delete the empty file. They have to change
      > nothing.
      > > > > Simply issue a %%POSTCMD to do so from the filewatcher
      utility.
      > That's
      > > > the
      > > > > nice thing about the "touch" command. If the file doesn't
      exist,
      > it
      > > > will
      > > > > create it, thus updating the file date/timestamp.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Unless PostNDM won't create a file that doesn't exist with the
      > "touch"
      > > > > process, this approach should work flawlessly.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > I hope this helps..
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ~~Pat
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > _____
      > > > >
      > > > > From: Control-X@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Control-
      X@yahoogroups.com]
      > On
      > > > Behalf
      > > > > Of lauriekenley
      > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 12:56 PM
      > > > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > Subject: [Control-X] Re: Filewatcher Question
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Yeah, deleting is how I have my environment set up.
      > > > >
      > > > > Unfortunately, they do not wish to do that and are having a
      > veritable
      > > > > herd of cows over it. I was hoping to be able to find a way to
      > > > > placate them. I suspect that this is going to be one of those
      > things
      > > > > where I have to force change, since they are living in the
      90s as
      > far
      > > > > as their scheduling goes. I had hoped to avoid having to play
      > > > > politics over stupid 'done' files. Alas.
      > > > >
      > > > > -Laurie
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In Control-X@yahoogrou <mailto:Control-X%
      40yahoogroups.com>
      > > > ps.com,
      > > > > Nicholas nxs973@ wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > We do something like that for PostNDM jobs on windows side.
      > Since
      > > > > BMC doesn't provide a module for Sterling Commerce's
      > ConnectDirect,
      > > > > we modified the cdp files to copy an existing "OK" file from
      > control-
      > > > > m processes folder to a network share upon successful where
      > Control-M
      > > > > Filewatch can see it. So the ConnectDirect/NDM job finishes
      within
      > > > > seconds of submission but the transfer itself can take a
      while.
      > The
      > > > > file is written only when ALL files are transferred (entire
      > process
      > > > > completes) and when the PostNDM job sees it, it turns itself
      > GREEN.
      > > > > If no file is created for a pre-determined period of time
      (defined
      > in
      > > > > filewatch file per job) it does NOTOK and operators are
      alerted.
      > > > > Then they go into ConnectDirect and investigate what happened.
      > > > > PostNDM hands off to Archive job and that DELETES the OK file
      and
      > > > > moves transferred files to the archive folder. If there are
      any
      > > > > problems (no files to archive, no OK file, etc) Archive job
      fails
      > and
      > > > > operator must investigate WHY files
      > > > > > couldn't be archived. This is very important for cyclic jobs
      > where
      > > > > you do not want to resend the same files. There is a PreNDM
      job as
      > > > > well that fills out the CDP file with exact filenames and
      that is
      > > > > given the OK by a filewatch job that looks for files that are
      > place
      > > > > in the folder by another process (extract, vb.net, ftp, etc)
      > > > > > So I would recommend that you delete the file for your job
      > instead
      > > > > of just checking it's modify or create date.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > lauriekenley lauriekenley@
      > > > > wrote: Greetings, earthlings!
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I am quite perplexed and need your brains, please.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I'm currently spreading the civility of Control-M to the
      > > > > barbarians
      > > > > > within my organization who use CA Workload. One of the
      things
      > > > > said
      > > > > > barbarians do right now is use CA's version of filewatcher
      to
      > > > > watch
      > > > > > for what they call 'done' files. It's a zero byte file that
      is
      > > > > > constantly out there, and gets touched each night when
      pieces of
      > > > > > their batch stream are done. Apparently, CA can tell the
      date on
      > > > > > this file and see if it's 'new' and if so, turns green or
      says
      > > > > yes,
      > > > > > or whatever barbarian schedulers do.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Now, I'm trying not to rip their batch apart and thereby
      ruffle
      > > > > > feathers, but I don't see any way for Control-M's
      filewatchers
      > to
      > > > > > tell if this file is 'new.' It's there or it's not, as far
      as
      > the
      > > > > > filewatcher is concerned. So, is there any way I can
      replicate
      > > > > this
      > > > > > functionality? I haven't found it so far, but the
      documentation
      > > > > for
      > > > > > ctmfw is iffy at best.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Any info will be greatly appreciated.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > -Laurie
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.