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

Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs

Expand Messages
  • cookb4ueat
    Thank you for the tip Gilbert. I will need to take this into consideration as I explore this solution. I have also not looked closely at the shout destination
    Message 1 of 18 , Mar 1 6:25 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you for the tip Gilbert. I will need to take this into consideration as I explore this solution.

      I have also not looked closely at the shout destination table. Can you elaborate on its usage in this scenario?

      Brian

      --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com, Gilbert C Cardenas <gilbertcardenas@...> wrote:
      >
      > I have to agree with you Brian, you can't really have an "enterprise scheduler" if you cannot schedule across the enterprise w/o going through a bunch of hoops and ladders.
      >
      > I started to offer the Rexec suggestion but it is not really an ideal situation because as I remember it, there was no "guarantee" that the rexec executed successfully or not. It simply hands off the request but does not return the completion status. At least that's how it used to work.
      >
      > I've seen others use the SHOUT destination table as a way to execute a script. Is this not an option for you?
      >
      > From: Control-X@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Control-X@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of cookb4ueat
      > Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 8:54 AM
      > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
      >
      >
      >
      > Thank you all for your feedback!! This is great!!
      >
      > I will not be able to use the scenario that was described of a global condition. I am familiar with this approach and we do use this quite a bit of the time. However, in order to try and maintain as clean of active jobs list, this would cause jobs to be ordered in that may never run, waiting on the global condition to be posted. We only try to have jobs ordered or forced in that will run during that business day.
      >
      > The filewatcher approach would also work, but then an FTP of a trigger file is needed. Which also leaves small files laying around to be cleaned up.
      >
      > I just found out about another alternative that I have not tested yet, but thought I would share with the group in case others have this requirement.
      >
      > I have found that there is a program PBXBATCH that uses the z/OS Unix System Services to perform an rexec or ssh command that could remotely run the ctmorder command on an open systems platform and directly order/force in jobs. Like I said, I have not tested this yet, but BMC offered this is a possible solution. We have also had an enhancment request open with them for this functionality since 2008 and it has not be put into the product yet.
      >
      > Again, thank you everyone for your feedback!!
      > Brian
      >
      > --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>, steve_knapp@ wrote:
      > >
      > > Hai,
      > >
      > > Sorry about that. I guess I got lost on who started this. Your idea
      > > about the filewatcher is another one we use too if a file is transferred
      > > before the open system job runs.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > From: Hai Tran <tran1267@<mailto:tran1267@>>
      > > To: "Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>" <Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>>
      > > Date: 02/28/2012 12:03 PM
      > > Subject: Re: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
      > > Sent by: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Hello Steve,
      > >
      > > I think Brian is the one with the problem. I am just responding to his
      > > inquiry. Do appreciate your suggestion and comment.
      > >
      > > Thanks.
      > >
      > > ============================
      > > Hai Tran
      > >
      > > tran1267@
      > >
      > > From: "steve_knapp@<mailto:steve_knapp@>" <steve_knapp@<mailto:steve_knapp@>>
      > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 10:49 AM
      > > Subject: Re: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
      > >
      > >
      > > Hai,
      > >
      > > We do this kind of thing with a global condition from the mainframe to run
      > > an open system job defined as cyclic (in case of multiple runs) that loads
      > > each day and has a MAXWAIT of zero in case it is not needed for the day.
      > > If the open system job is run it turns the global condition back off on
      > > the both mainframe and open system CONTROL-M datacenters to await another
      > > run if needed. Is there some reason you cannot have the open system job
      > > in the queue already waiting for a mainframe run as I have described?
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > From: "cookb4ueat" <bcook@<mailto:bcook@>>
      > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > Date: 02/28/2012 11:21 AM
      > > Subject: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
      > > Sent by: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Thank you for your response Hai. We currently perform this type of
      > > dependancy, however it does not meet our needs for this scenario. In this
      > > scenario, the jobs on the mainframe are not scheduled and are invoked by
      > > the user community and can run at anytime. This is why we need to have
      > > something that is forced/ordered in and not scheduled, waiting on a global
      > > condition.
      > >
      > > Brian
      > >
      > > --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>, Hai Tran <tran1267@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Brian,
      > > >
      > > > A suggestion to your situation is to have the open system job waits for
      > > a condition posted from the MF. This can be done, if not already done, by
      > > defining global condition. Â
      > > >
      > > > Â
      > > > Thanks.
      > > >
      > > > ============================
      > > > Hai Tran
      > > >
      > > > tran1267@
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ________________________________
      > > > From: cookb4ueat <bcook@>
      > > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:05 AM
      > > > Subject: [Control-X] Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Â
      > > > Hi Everyone,
      > > >
      > > > We are running Control-M products on both open systems and mainframe
      > > platforms. We are looking to replace a product that resides on the
      > > mainframe that is currently providing some automation around
      > > force/ordering of jobs on the open systems platforms.
      > > >
      > > > In the Control-M product suite, there is currently not a solution that
      > > allows for when a mainframe job completes that it can force/order in an
      > > open systems job.
      > > >
      > > > I am looking for feedback from this group on what other tools people use
      > > to perform this task.
      > > >
      > > > Thank you in advance for your responses.
      > > > Brian Cook
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------
      > >
      > > Control-X email list does not tolerate spam. For more information
      > > http://s390.8m.com/controlm.html DO NOT Spam this list or any members. To
      > > unsubscribe go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Control-X and click on
      > > User Center. Not affiliated with BMC Software.Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      > This e-mail (and any attachments) may contain information that is confidential and/or protected by law. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
      >
    • Gilbert C Cardenas
      Sorry, the CTM SHOUT Destination Table is server side and forgot you re trying to go the other way from MF to server. From: Control-X@yahoogroups.com
      Message 2 of 18 , Mar 1 6:37 AM
      • 0 Attachment

        Sorry, the CTM SHOUT Destination Table is server side and forgot you’re trying to go the other way from MF to server.

         

        From: Control-X@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Control-X@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of cookb4ueat
        Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 8:25 AM
        To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs

         

         

        Thank you for the tip Gilbert. I will need to take this into consideration as I explore this solution.

        I have also not looked closely at the shout destination table. Can you elaborate on its usage in this scenario?

        Brian

        --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com, Gilbert C Cardenas <gilbertcardenas@...> wrote:
        >
        > I have to agree with you Brian, you can't really have an "enterprise scheduler" if you cannot schedule across the enterprise w/o going through a bunch of hoops and ladders.
        >
        > I started to offer the Rexec suggestion but it is not really an ideal situation because as I remember it, there was no "guarantee" that the rexec executed successfully or not. It simply hands off the request but does not return the completion status. At least that's how it used to work.
        >
        > I've seen others use the SHOUT destination table as a way to execute a script. Is this not an option for you?
        >
        > From: Control-X@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Control-X@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of cookb4ueat
        > Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 8:54 AM
        > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
        >
        >
        >
        > Thank you all for your feedback!! This is great!!
        >
        > I will not be able to use the scenario that was described of a global condition. I am familiar with this approach and we do use this quite a bit of the time. However, in order to try and maintain as clean of active jobs list, this would cause jobs to be ordered in that may never run, waiting on the global condition to be posted. We only try to have jobs ordered or forced in that will run during that business day.
        >
        > The filewatcher approach would also work, but then an FTP of a trigger file is needed. Which also leaves small files laying around to be cleaned up.
        >
        > I just found out about another alternative that I have not tested yet, but thought I would share with the group in case others have this requirement.
        >
        > I have found that there is a program PBXBATCH that uses the z/OS Unix System Services to perform an rexec or ssh command that could remotely run the ctmorder command on an open systems platform and directly order/force in jobs. Like I said, I have not tested this yet, but BMC offered this is a possible solution. We have also had an enhancment request open with them for this functionality since 2008 and it has not be put into the product yet.
        >
        > Again, thank you everyone for your feedback!!
        > Brian
        >
        > --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>, steve_knapp@ wrote:
        > >
        > > Hai,
        > >
        > > Sorry about that. I guess I got lost on who started this. Your idea
        > > about the filewatcher is another one we use too if a file is transferred
        > > before the open system job runs.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > From: Hai Tran <tran1267@<mailto:tran1267@>>
        > > To: "Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>" <Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>>
        > > Date: 02/28/2012 12:03 PM
        > > Subject: Re: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
        > > Sent by: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Hello Steve,
        > >
        > > I think Brian is the one with the problem. I am just responding to his
        > > inquiry. Do appreciate your suggestion and comment.
        > >
        > > Thanks.
        > >
        > > ============================
        > > Hai Tran
        > >
        > > tran1267@
        > >
        > > From: "steve_knapp@<mailto:steve_knapp@>" <steve_knapp@<mailto:steve_knapp@>>
        > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
        > > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 10:49 AM
        > > Subject: Re: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
        > >
        > >
        > > Hai,
        > >
        > > We do this kind of thing with a global condition from the mainframe to run
        > > an open system job defined as cyclic (in case of multiple runs) that loads
        > > each day and has a MAXWAIT of zero in case it is not needed for the day.
        > > If the open system job is run it turns the global condition back off on
        > > the both mainframe and open system CONTROL-M datacenters to await another
        > > run if needed. Is there some reason you cannot have the open system job
        > > in the queue already waiting for a mainframe run as I have described?
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > From: "cookb4ueat" <bcook@<mailto:bcook@>>
        > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
        > > Date: 02/28/2012 11:21 AM
        > > Subject: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
        > > Sent by: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Thank you for your response Hai. We currently perform this type of
        > > dependancy, however it does not meet our needs for this scenario. In this
        > > scenario, the jobs on the mainframe are not scheduled and are invoked by
        > > the user community and can run at anytime. This is why we need to have
        > > something that is forced/ordered in and not scheduled, waiting on a global
        > > condition.
        > >
        > > Brian
        > >
        > > --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>, Hai Tran <tran1267@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Brian,
        > > >
        > > > A suggestion to your situation is to have the open system job waits for
        > > a condition posted from the MF. This can be done, if not already done, by
        > > defining global condition. Â
        > > >
        > > > Â
        > > > Thanks.
        > > >
        > > > ============================
        > > > Hai Tran
        > > >
        > > > tran1267@
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > ________________________________
        > > > From: cookb4ueat <bcook@>
        > > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
        > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:05 AM
        > > > Subject: [Control-X] Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Â
        > > > Hi Everyone,
        > > >
        > > > We are running Control-M products on both open systems and mainframe
        > > platforms. We are looking to replace a product that resides on the
        > > mainframe that is currently providing some automation around
        > > force/ordering of jobs on the open systems platforms.
        > > >
        > > > In the Control-M product suite, there is currently not a solution that
        > > allows for when a mainframe job completes that it can force/order in an
        > > open systems job.
        > > >
        > > > I am looking for feedback from this group on what other tools people use
        > > to perform this task.
        > > >
        > > > Thank you in advance for your responses.
        > > > Brian Cook
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > ------------------------------------
        > >
        > > Control-X email list does not tolerate spam. For more information
        > > http://s390.8m.com/controlm.html DO NOT Spam this list or any members. To
        > > unsubscribe go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Control-X and click on
        > > User Center. Not affiliated with BMC Software.Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        >
        >
        > ________________________________
        > This e-mail (and any attachments) may contain information that is confidential and/or protected by law. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
        >



        This e-mail (and any attachments) may contain information that is confidential and/or protected by law. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.

      • John
        This is interesting, please explain how to use the shout destination table to order a job.
        Message 3 of 18 , Mar 4 9:12 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          This is interesting, please explain how to use the shout destination table to order a job.

          --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com, Gilbert C Cardenas <gilbertcardenas@...> wrote:
          >
          > Sorry, the CTM SHOUT Destination Table is server side and forgot you're trying to go the other way from MF to server.
          >
          > From: Control-X@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Control-X@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of cookb4ueat
          > Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 8:25 AM
          > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
          >
          >
          >
          > Thank you for the tip Gilbert. I will need to take this into consideration as I explore this solution.
          >
          > I have also not looked closely at the shout destination table. Can you elaborate on its usage in this scenario?
          >
          > Brian
          >
          > --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>, Gilbert C Cardenas <gilbertcardenas@<mailto:gilbertcardenas@>> wrote:
          > >
          > > I have to agree with you Brian, you can't really have an "enterprise scheduler" if you cannot schedule across the enterprise w/o going through a bunch of hoops and ladders.
          > >
          > > I started to offer the Rexec suggestion but it is not really an ideal situation because as I remember it, there was no "guarantee" that the rexec executed successfully or not. It simply hands off the request but does not return the completion status. At least that's how it used to work.
          > >
          > > I've seen others use the SHOUT destination table as a way to execute a script. Is this not an option for you?
          > >
          > > From: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of cookb4ueat
          > > Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 8:54 AM
          > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
          > > Subject: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Thank you all for your feedback!! This is great!!
          > >
          > > I will not be able to use the scenario that was described of a global condition. I am familiar with this approach and we do use this quite a bit of the time. However, in order to try and maintain as clean of active jobs list, this would cause jobs to be ordered in that may never run, waiting on the global condition to be posted. We only try to have jobs ordered or forced in that will run during that business day.
          > >
          > > The filewatcher approach would also work, but then an FTP of a trigger file is needed. Which also leaves small files laying around to be cleaned up.
          > >
          > > I just found out about another alternative that I have not tested yet, but thought I would share with the group in case others have this requirement.
          > >
          > > I have found that there is a program PBXBATCH that uses the z/OS Unix System Services to perform an rexec or ssh command that could remotely run the ctmorder command on an open systems platform and directly order/force in jobs. Like I said, I have not tested this yet, but BMC offered this is a possible solution. We have also had an enhancment request open with them for this functionality since 2008 and it has not be put into the product yet.
          > >
          > > Again, thank you everyone for your feedback!!
          > > Brian
          > >
          > > --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>, steve_knapp@ wrote:
          > > >
          > > > Hai,
          > > >
          > > > Sorry about that. I guess I got lost on who started this. Your idea
          > > > about the filewatcher is another one we use too if a file is transferred
          > > > before the open system job runs.
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > From: Hai Tran <tran1267@<mailto:tran1267@>>
          > > > To: "Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>" <Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>>
          > > > Date: 02/28/2012 12:03 PM
          > > > Subject: Re: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
          > > > Sent by: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Hello Steve,
          > > >
          > > > I think Brian is the one with the problem. I am just responding to his
          > > > inquiry. Do appreciate your suggestion and comment.
          > > >
          > > > Thanks.
          > > >
          > > > ============================
          > > > Hai Tran
          > > >
          > > > tran1267@
          > > >
          > > > From: "steve_knapp@<mailto:steve_knapp@>" <steve_knapp@<mailto:steve_knapp@>>
          > > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
          > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 10:49 AM
          > > > Subject: Re: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Hai,
          > > >
          > > > We do this kind of thing with a global condition from the mainframe to run
          > > > an open system job defined as cyclic (in case of multiple runs) that loads
          > > > each day and has a MAXWAIT of zero in case it is not needed for the day.
          > > > If the open system job is run it turns the global condition back off on
          > > > the both mainframe and open system CONTROL-M datacenters to await another
          > > > run if needed. Is there some reason you cannot have the open system job
          > > > in the queue already waiting for a mainframe run as I have described?
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > From: "cookb4ueat" <bcook@<mailto:bcook@>>
          > > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
          > > > Date: 02/28/2012 11:21 AM
          > > > Subject: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
          > > > Sent by: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Thank you for your response Hai. We currently perform this type of
          > > > dependancy, however it does not meet our needs for this scenario. In this
          > > > scenario, the jobs on the mainframe are not scheduled and are invoked by
          > > > the user community and can run at anytime. This is why we need to have
          > > > something that is forced/ordered in and not scheduled, waiting on a global
          > > > condition.
          > > >
          > > > Brian
          > > >
          > > > --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>, Hai Tran <tran1267@> wrote:
          > > > >
          > > > > Brian,
          > > > >
          > > > > A suggestion to your situation is to have the open system job waits for
          > > > a condition posted from the MF. This can be done, if not already done, by
          > > > defining global condition. Â
          > > > >
          > > > > Â
          > > > > Thanks.
          > > > >
          > > > > ============================
          > > > > Hai Tran
          > > > >
          > > > > tran1267@
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > ________________________________
          > > > > From: cookb4ueat <bcook@>
          > > > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
          > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:05 AM
          > > > > Subject: [Control-X] Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > Â
          > > > > Hi Everyone,
          > > > >
          > > > > We are running Control-M products on both open systems and mainframe
          > > > platforms. We are looking to replace a product that resides on the
          > > > mainframe that is currently providing some automation around
          > > > force/ordering of jobs on the open systems platforms.
          > > > >
          > > > > In the Control-M product suite, there is currently not a solution that
          > > > allows for when a mainframe job completes that it can force/order in an
          > > > open systems job.
          > > > >
          > > > > I am looking for feedback from this group on what other tools people use
          > > > to perform this task.
          > > > >
          > > > > Thank you in advance for your responses.
          > > > > Brian Cook
          > > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > ------------------------------------
          > > >
          > > > Control-X email list does not tolerate spam. For more information
          > > > http://s390.8m.com/controlm.html DO NOT Spam this list or any members. To
          > > > unsubscribe go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Control-X and click on
          > > > User Center. Not affiliated with BMC Software.Yahoo! Groups Links
          > > >
          > >
          > >
          > > ________________________________
          > > This e-mail (and any attachments) may contain information that is confidential and/or protected by law. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
          > >
          >
          >
          > ________________________________
          > This e-mail (and any attachments) may contain information that is confidential and/or protected by law. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
          >
        • christine610511
          If you can t trust a process on the mainframe to remotely run a ctmorder command on the other controlm server, I can t see a solution to your problem without
          Message 4 of 18 , Mar 5 3:41 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            If you can't trust a process on the mainframe to remotely run a ctmorder command on the other controlm server, I can't see a solution to your problem without having something scheduled on the server side.

            I'd suggest a dummy job (with a max wait of zero and possibly cyclic since you don't know how many times the users are going to trigger jobs) that depends on a global condition from the mainframe. The dummy job could order on the required jobs via an ON statement, then delete it's in condition and reset itself to run again should another global condition come across. (Make global conditions "two way" so when it is deleted on the server it also gets deleted on the mainframe otherwise new ones won't get globally posted)

            --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com, "John" <chris.l.miller@...> wrote:
            >
            > This is interesting, please explain how to use the shout destination table to order a job.
            >
            > --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com, Gilbert C Cardenas <gilbertcardenas@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Sorry, the CTM SHOUT Destination Table is server side and forgot you're trying to go the other way from MF to server.
            > >
            > > From: Control-X@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Control-X@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of cookb4ueat
            > > Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 8:25 AM
            > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com
            > > Subject: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Thank you for the tip Gilbert. I will need to take this into consideration as I explore this solution.
            > >
            > > I have also not looked closely at the shout destination table. Can you elaborate on its usage in this scenario?
            > >
            > > Brian
            > >
            > > --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>, Gilbert C Cardenas <gilbertcardenas@<mailto:gilbertcardenas@>> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > I have to agree with you Brian, you can't really have an "enterprise scheduler" if you cannot schedule across the enterprise w/o going through a bunch of hoops and ladders.
            > > >
            > > > I started to offer the Rexec suggestion but it is not really an ideal situation because as I remember it, there was no "guarantee" that the rexec executed successfully or not. It simply hands off the request but does not return the completion status. At least that's how it used to work.
            > > >
            > > > I've seen others use the SHOUT destination table as a way to execute a script. Is this not an option for you?
            > > >
            > > > From: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of cookb4ueat
            > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 8:54 AM
            > > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
            > > > Subject: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Thank you all for your feedback!! This is great!!
            > > >
            > > > I will not be able to use the scenario that was described of a global condition. I am familiar with this approach and we do use this quite a bit of the time. However, in order to try and maintain as clean of active jobs list, this would cause jobs to be ordered in that may never run, waiting on the global condition to be posted. We only try to have jobs ordered or forced in that will run during that business day.
            > > >
            > > > The filewatcher approach would also work, but then an FTP of a trigger file is needed. Which also leaves small files laying around to be cleaned up.
            > > >
            > > > I just found out about another alternative that I have not tested yet, but thought I would share with the group in case others have this requirement.
            > > >
            > > > I have found that there is a program PBXBATCH that uses the z/OS Unix System Services to perform an rexec or ssh command that could remotely run the ctmorder command on an open systems platform and directly order/force in jobs. Like I said, I have not tested this yet, but BMC offered this is a possible solution. We have also had an enhancment request open with them for this functionality since 2008 and it has not be put into the product yet.
            > > >
            > > > Again, thank you everyone for your feedback!!
            > > > Brian
            > > >
            > > > --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>, steve_knapp@ wrote:
            > > > >
            > > > > Hai,
            > > > >
            > > > > Sorry about that. I guess I got lost on who started this. Your idea
            > > > > about the filewatcher is another one we use too if a file is transferred
            > > > > before the open system job runs.
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > From: Hai Tran <tran1267@<mailto:tran1267@>>
            > > > > To: "Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>" <Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>>
            > > > > Date: 02/28/2012 12:03 PM
            > > > > Subject: Re: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
            > > > > Sent by: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > Hello Steve,
            > > > >
            > > > > I think Brian is the one with the problem. I am just responding to his
            > > > > inquiry. Do appreciate your suggestion and comment.
            > > > >
            > > > > Thanks.
            > > > >
            > > > > ============================
            > > > > Hai Tran
            > > > >
            > > > > tran1267@
            > > > >
            > > > > From: "steve_knapp@<mailto:steve_knapp@>" <steve_knapp@<mailto:steve_knapp@>>
            > > > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
            > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 10:49 AM
            > > > > Subject: Re: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > Hai,
            > > > >
            > > > > We do this kind of thing with a global condition from the mainframe to run
            > > > > an open system job defined as cyclic (in case of multiple runs) that loads
            > > > > each day and has a MAXWAIT of zero in case it is not needed for the day.
            > > > > If the open system job is run it turns the global condition back off on
            > > > > the both mainframe and open system CONTROL-M datacenters to await another
            > > > > run if needed. Is there some reason you cannot have the open system job
            > > > > in the queue already waiting for a mainframe run as I have described?
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > From: "cookb4ueat" <bcook@<mailto:bcook@>>
            > > > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
            > > > > Date: 02/28/2012 11:21 AM
            > > > > Subject: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
            > > > > Sent by: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > Thank you for your response Hai. We currently perform this type of
            > > > > dependancy, however it does not meet our needs for this scenario. In this
            > > > > scenario, the jobs on the mainframe are not scheduled and are invoked by
            > > > > the user community and can run at anytime. This is why we need to have
            > > > > something that is forced/ordered in and not scheduled, waiting on a global
            > > > > condition.
            > > > >
            > > > > Brian
            > > > >
            > > > > --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>, Hai Tran <tran1267@> wrote:
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Brian,
            > > > > >
            > > > > > A suggestion to your situation is to have the open system job waits for
            > > > > a condition posted from the MF. This can be done, if not already done, by
            > > > > defining global condition. Â
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Â
            > > > > > Thanks.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > ============================
            > > > > > Hai Tran
            > > > > >
            > > > > > tran1267@
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > > ________________________________
            > > > > > From: cookb4ueat <bcook@>
            > > > > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
            > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:05 AM
            > > > > > Subject: [Control-X] Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Â
            > > > > > Hi Everyone,
            > > > > >
            > > > > > We are running Control-M products on both open systems and mainframe
            > > > > platforms. We are looking to replace a product that resides on the
            > > > > mainframe that is currently providing some automation around
            > > > > force/ordering of jobs on the open systems platforms.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > In the Control-M product suite, there is currently not a solution that
            > > > > allows for when a mainframe job completes that it can force/order in an
            > > > > open systems job.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > I am looking for feedback from this group on what other tools people use
            > > > > to perform this task.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Thank you in advance for your responses.
            > > > > > Brian Cook
            > > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > ------------------------------------
            > > > >
            > > > > Control-X email list does not tolerate spam. For more information
            > > > > http://s390.8m.com/controlm.html DO NOT Spam this list or any members. To
            > > > > unsubscribe go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Control-X and click on
            > > > > User Center. Not affiliated with BMC Software.Yahoo! Groups Links
            > > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > ________________________________
            > > > This e-mail (and any attachments) may contain information that is confidential and/or protected by law. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ________________________________
            > > This e-mail (and any attachments) may contain information that is confidential and/or protected by law. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
            > >
            >
          • Gilbert C Cardenas
            There are probably a couple ways to get it done. We do not run a lot of jobs on the distributed side so I have not spent a lot of time or effort towards this
            Message 5 of 18 , Mar 5 7:20 AM
            • 0 Attachment

              There are probably a couple ways to get it done.  We do not run a lot of jobs on the distributed side so I have not spent a lot of time or effort towards this but it is definitely an interesting challenge.  

               

              I suppose I would take a look at the EM API first but that is a little more entailed.

               

              The other thing I would try is to “build” the scheduling parameters into a library member or dataset as in the second format listed below.  You could then ftp the dataset to the CTM server where a scheduled job (cyclic perhaps) executed a simple custom script or bat file to execute the CTMORDER –INPUT_FILE <fullPathToFileName> command.  Upon good completion the file would be removed and if unsuccessful, a shout or email sent and file moved to a different folder for later review.

               

              I believe that the CTMORDER has some limitations so if that doesn’t work then perhaps the EM CLI might.

               

              The ctmorder utility can be invoked using either of two formats.

               

              The first format contains only a few parameters in a specific order:

              ctmorder <SMART Table name> <jobName> <odate>\ [{order|force}]

              This first format cannot be used if the ctmorder utility is invoked from a

              Control-M/Agent computer.

               

              The second format allows specification of all optional parameters in any order but

              requires each specified parameter to be named. Format:

              ctmorder -TABLE <Table|SMART Table|Table Path> -NAME    <job

              name|sub table name> -ODATE <scheduling date>

              [-FORCE <y|n>]

              [-HOLD  <y|n>]

              [-SEQNO <job sequence number>]

              [-INTO_TABLE_ORDERID <{SMART table order id}|LAST|ALONE|NEWT]>

              [-NODUPLICATION]

              [-DEBUG    <debug level 0-5> ]

              [-QUIET  ]

              [-AUTOEDIT <varname> <expression> ]

              [-ODATE_OPTION <VALUE_DATE|RUN_DATE>]

              -or-

              ctmorder -input_file <fullPathToFileName>

               

               

              From: Control-X@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Control-X@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of christine610511
              Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 5:42 AM
              To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs

               

               

              If you can't trust a process on the mainframe to remotely run a ctmorder command on the other controlm server, I can't see a solution to your problem without having something scheduled on the server side.

              I'd suggest a dummy job (with a max wait of zero and possibly cyclic since you don't know how many times the users are going to trigger jobs) that depends on a global condition from the mainframe. The dummy job could order on the required jobs via an ON statement, then delete it's in condition and reset itself to run again should another global condition come across. (Make global conditions "two way" so when it is deleted on the server it also gets deleted on the mainframe otherwise new ones won't get globally posted)

              --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com, "John" <chris.l.miller@...> wrote:
              >
              > This is interesting, please explain how to use the shout destination table to order a job.
              >
              > --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com, Gilbert C Cardenas <gilbertcardenas@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Sorry, the CTM SHOUT Destination Table is server side and forgot you're trying to go the other way from MF to server.
              > >
              > > From: Control-X@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Control-X@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of cookb4ueat
              > > Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 8:25 AM
              > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com
              > > Subject: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Thank you for the tip Gilbert. I will need to take this into consideration as I explore this solution.
              > >
              > > I have also not looked closely at the shout destination table. Can you elaborate on its usage in this scenario?
              > >
              > > Brian
              > >
              > > --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>, Gilbert C Cardenas <gilbertcardenas@<mailto:gilbertcardenas@>> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > I have to agree with you Brian, you can't really have an "enterprise scheduler" if you cannot schedule across the enterprise w/o going through a bunch of hoops and ladders.
              > > >
              > > > I started to offer the Rexec suggestion but it is not really an ideal situation because as I remember it, there was no "guarantee" that the rexec executed successfully or not. It simply hands off the request but does not return the completion status. At least that's how it used to work.
              > > >
              > > > I've seen others use the SHOUT destination table as a way to execute a script. Is this not an option for you?
              > > >
              > > > From: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of cookb4ueat
              > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 8:54 AM
              > > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
              > > > Subject: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > Thank you all for your feedback!! This is great!!
              > > >
              > > > I will not be able to use the scenario that was described of a global condition. I am familiar with this approach and we do use this quite a bit of the time. However, in order to try and maintain as clean of active jobs list, this would cause jobs to be ordered in that may never run, waiting on the global condition to be posted. We only try to have jobs ordered or forced in that will run during that business day.
              > > >
              > > > The filewatcher approach would also work, but then an FTP of a trigger file is needed. Which also leaves small files laying around to be cleaned up.
              > > >
              > > > I just found out about another alternative that I have not tested yet, but thought I would share with the group in case others have this requirement.
              > > >
              > > > I have found that there is a program PBXBATCH that uses the z/OS Unix System Services to perform an rexec or ssh command that could remotely run the ctmorder command on an open systems platform and directly order/force in jobs. Like I said, I have not tested this yet, but BMC offered this is a possible solution. We have also had an enhancment request open with them for this functionality since 2008 and it has not be put into the product yet.
              > > >
              > > > Again, thank you everyone for your feedback!!
              > > > Brian
              > > >
              > > > --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>, steve_knapp@ wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > Hai,
              > > > >
              > > > > Sorry about that. I guess I got lost on who started this. Your idea
              > > > > about the filewatcher is another one we use too if a file is transferred
              > > > > before the open system job runs.
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > From: Hai Tran <tran1267@<mailto:tran1267@>>
              > > > > To: "Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>" <Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>>
              > > > > Date: 02/28/2012 12:03 PM
              > > > > Subject: Re: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
              > > > > Sent by: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > Hello Steve,
              > > > >
              > > > > I think Brian is the one with the problem. I am just responding to his
              > > > > inquiry. Do appreciate your suggestion and comment.
              > > > >
              > > > > Thanks.
              > > > >
              > > > > ============================
              > > > > Hai Tran
              > > > >
              > > > > tran1267@
              > > > >
              > > > > From: "steve_knapp@<mailto:steve_knapp@>" <steve_knapp@<mailto:steve_knapp@>>
              > > > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
              > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 10:49 AM
              > > > > Subject: Re: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > Hai,
              > > > >
              > > > > We do this kind of thing with a global condition from the mainframe to run
              > > > > an open system job defined as cyclic (in case of multiple runs) that loads
              > > > > each day and has a MAXWAIT of zero in case it is not needed for the day.
              > > > > If the open system job is run it turns the global condition back off on
              > > > > the both mainframe and open system CONTROL-M datacenters to await another
              > > > > run if needed. Is there some reason you cannot have the open system job
              > > > > in the queue already waiting for a mainframe run as I have described?
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > From: "cookb4ueat" <bcook@<mailto:bcook@>>
              > > > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
              > > > > Date: 02/28/2012 11:21 AM
              > > > > Subject: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
              > > > > Sent by: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > Thank you for your response Hai. We currently perform this type of
              > > > > dependancy, however it does not meet our needs for this scenario. In this
              > > > > scenario, the jobs on the mainframe are not scheduled and are invoked by
              > > > > the user community and can run at anytime. This is why we need to have
              > > > > something that is forced/ordered in and not scheduled, waiting on a global
              > > > > condition.
              > > > >
              > > > > Brian
              > > > >
              > > > > --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>, Hai Tran <tran1267@> wrote:
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Brian,
              > > > > >
              > > > > > A suggestion to your situation is to have the open system job waits for
              > > > > a condition posted from the MF. This can be done, if not already done, by
              > > > > defining global condition. Â
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Â
              > > > > > Thanks.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > ============================
              > > > > > Hai Tran
              > > > > >
              > > > > > tran1267@
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > > ________________________________
              > > > > > From: cookb4ueat <bcook@>
              > > > > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
              > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:05 AM
              > > > > > Subject: [Control-X] Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Â
              > > > > > Hi Everyone,
              > > > > >
              > > > > > We are running Control-M products on both open systems and mainframe
              > > > > platforms. We are looking to replace a product that resides on the
              > > > > mainframe that is currently providing some automation around
              > > > > force/ordering of jobs on the open systems platforms.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > In the Control-M product suite, there is currently not a solution that
              > > > > allows for when a mainframe job completes that it can force/order in an
              > > > > open systems job.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > I am looking for feedback from this group on what other tools people use
              > > > > to perform this task.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Thank you in advance for your responses.
              > > > > > Brian Cook
              > > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > ------------------------------------
              > > > >
              > > > > Control-X email list does not tolerate spam. For more information
              > > > > http://s390.8m.com/controlm.html DO NOT Spam this list or any members. To
              > > > > unsubscribe go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Control-X and click on
              > > > > User Center. Not affiliated with BMC Software.Yahoo! Groups Links
              > > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > ________________________________
              > > > This e-mail (and any attachments) may contain information that is confidential and/or protected by law. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > > ________________________________
              > > This e-mail (and any attachments) may contain information that is confidential and/or protected by law. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
              > >
              >



              This e-mail (and any attachments) may contain information that is confidential and/or protected by law. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.

            • cookb4ueat
              Thank you for your feedback Gilbert! We are leaning towards using either a mainframe process, such as bpxbatch or sending a shout message to a script by
              Message 6 of 18 , Mar 6 6:16 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Thank you for your feedback Gilbert! We are leaning towards using either a mainframe process, such as bpxbatch or sending a shout message to a script by changing the EM system parameter SendAlarmToScript. The script would then run the CLI utility to perform the order/force of jobs.


                --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com, Gilbert C Cardenas <gilbertcardenas@...> wrote:
                >
                > There are probably a couple ways to get it done. We do not run a lot of jobs on the distributed side so I have not spent a lot of time or effort towards this but it is definitely an interesting challenge.
                >
                > I suppose I would take a look at the EM API first but that is a little more entailed.
                >
                > The other thing I would try is to "build" the scheduling parameters into a library member or dataset as in the second format listed below. You could then ftp the dataset to the CTM server where a scheduled job (cyclic perhaps) executed a simple custom script or bat file to execute the CTMORDER -INPUT_FILE <fullPathToFileName> command. Upon good completion the file would be removed and if unsuccessful, a shout or email sent and file moved to a different folder for later review.
                >
                > I believe that the CTMORDER has some limitations so if that doesn't work then perhaps the EM CLI might.
                >
                > The ctmorder utility can be invoked using either of two formats.
                >
                > The first format contains only a few parameters in a specific order:
                > ctmorder <SMART Table name> <jobName> <odate>\ [{order|force}]
                > This first format cannot be used if the ctmorder utility is invoked from a
                > Control-M/Agent computer.
                >
                > The second format allows specification of all optional parameters in any order but
                > requires each specified parameter to be named. Format:
                > ctmorder -TABLE <Table|SMART Table|Table Path> -NAME <job
                > name|sub table name> -ODATE <scheduling date>
                > [-FORCE <y|n>]
                > [-HOLD <y|n>]
                > [-SEQNO <job sequence number>]
                > [-INTO_TABLE_ORDERID <{SMART table order id}|LAST|ALONE|NEWT]>
                > [-NODUPLICATION]
                > [-DEBUG <debug level 0-5> ]
                > [-QUIET ]
                > [-AUTOEDIT <varname> <expression> ]
                > [-ODATE_OPTION <VALUE_DATE|RUN_DATE>]
                > -or-
                > ctmorder -input_file <fullPathToFileName>
                >
                >
                > From: Control-X@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Control-X@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of christine610511
                > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 5:42 AM
                > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
                >
                >
                >
                > If you can't trust a process on the mainframe to remotely run a ctmorder command on the other controlm server, I can't see a solution to your problem without having something scheduled on the server side.
                >
                > I'd suggest a dummy job (with a max wait of zero and possibly cyclic since you don't know how many times the users are going to trigger jobs) that depends on a global condition from the mainframe. The dummy job could order on the required jobs via an ON statement, then delete it's in condition and reset itself to run again should another global condition come across. (Make global conditions "two way" so when it is deleted on the server it also gets deleted on the mainframe otherwise new ones won't get globally posted)
                >
                > --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>, "John" <chris.l.miller@<mailto:chris.l.miller@>> wrote:
                > >
                > > This is interesting, please explain how to use the shout destination table to order a job.
                > >
                > > --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>, Gilbert C Cardenas <gilbertcardenas@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Sorry, the CTM SHOUT Destination Table is server side and forgot you're trying to go the other way from MF to server.
                > > >
                > > > From: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of cookb4ueat
                > > > Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 8:25 AM
                > > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
                > > > Subject: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Thank you for the tip Gilbert. I will need to take this into consideration as I explore this solution.
                > > >
                > > > I have also not looked closely at the shout destination table. Can you elaborate on its usage in this scenario?
                > > >
                > > > Brian
                > > >
                > > > --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>, Gilbert C Cardenas <gilbertcardenas@<mailto:gilbertcardenas@>> wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > > I have to agree with you Brian, you can't really have an "enterprise scheduler" if you cannot schedule across the enterprise w/o going through a bunch of hoops and ladders.
                > > > >
                > > > > I started to offer the Rexec suggestion but it is not really an ideal situation because as I remember it, there was no "guarantee" that the rexec executed successfully or not. It simply hands off the request but does not return the completion status. At least that's how it used to work.
                > > > >
                > > > > I've seen others use the SHOUT destination table as a way to execute a script. Is this not an option for you?
                > > > >
                > > > > From: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of cookb4ueat
                > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 8:54 AM
                > > > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
                > > > > Subject: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > Thank you all for your feedback!! This is great!!
                > > > >
                > > > > I will not be able to use the scenario that was described of a global condition. I am familiar with this approach and we do use this quite a bit of the time. However, in order to try and maintain as clean of active jobs list, this would cause jobs to be ordered in that may never run, waiting on the global condition to be posted. We only try to have jobs ordered or forced in that will run during that business day.
                > > > >
                > > > > The filewatcher approach would also work, but then an FTP of a trigger file is needed. Which also leaves small files laying around to be cleaned up.
                > > > >
                > > > > I just found out about another alternative that I have not tested yet, but thought I would share with the group in case others have this requirement.
                > > > >
                > > > > I have found that there is a program PBXBATCH that uses the z/OS Unix System Services to perform an rexec or ssh command that could remotely run the ctmorder command on an open systems platform and directly order/force in jobs. Like I said, I have not tested this yet, but BMC offered this is a possible solution. We have also had an enhancment request open with them for this functionality since 2008 and it has not be put into the product yet.
                > > > >
                > > > > Again, thank you everyone for your feedback!!
                > > > > Brian
                > > > >
                > > > > --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>, steve_knapp@ wrote:
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Hai,
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Sorry about that. I guess I got lost on who started this. Your idea
                > > > > > about the filewatcher is another one we use too if a file is transferred
                > > > > > before the open system job runs.
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > > From: Hai Tran <tran1267@<mailto:tran1267@>>
                > > > > > To: "Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>" <Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>>
                > > > > > Date: 02/28/2012 12:03 PM
                > > > > > Subject: Re: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
                > > > > > Sent by: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Hello Steve,
                > > > > >
                > > > > > I think Brian is the one with the problem. I am just responding to his
                > > > > > inquiry. Do appreciate your suggestion and comment.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Thanks.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > ============================
                > > > > > Hai Tran
                > > > > >
                > > > > > tran1267@
                > > > > >
                > > > > > From: "steve_knapp@<mailto:steve_knapp@>" <steve_knapp@<mailto:steve_knapp@>>
                > > > > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
                > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 10:49 AM
                > > > > > Subject: Re: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Hai,
                > > > > >
                > > > > > We do this kind of thing with a global condition from the mainframe to run
                > > > > > an open system job defined as cyclic (in case of multiple runs) that loads
                > > > > > each day and has a MAXWAIT of zero in case it is not needed for the day.
                > > > > > If the open system job is run it turns the global condition back off on
                > > > > > the both mainframe and open system CONTROL-M datacenters to await another
                > > > > > run if needed. Is there some reason you cannot have the open system job
                > > > > > in the queue already waiting for a mainframe run as I have described?
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > > From: "cookb4ueat" <bcook@<mailto:bcook@>>
                > > > > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
                > > > > > Date: 02/28/2012 11:21 AM
                > > > > > Subject: [Control-X] Re: Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
                > > > > > Sent by: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Thank you for your response Hai. We currently perform this type of
                > > > > > dependancy, however it does not meet our needs for this scenario. In this
                > > > > > scenario, the jobs on the mainframe are not scheduled and are invoked by
                > > > > > the user community and can run at anytime. This is why we need to have
                > > > > > something that is forced/ordered in and not scheduled, waiting on a global
                > > > > > condition.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Brian
                > > > > >
                > > > > > --- In Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>, Hai Tran <tran1267@> wrote:
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Brian,
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > A suggestion to your situation is to have the open system job waits for
                > > > > > a condition posted from the MF. This can be done, if not already done, by
                > > > > > defining global condition. Â
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Â
                > > > > > > Thanks.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > ============================
                > > > > > > Hai Tran
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > tran1267@
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > ________________________________
                > > > > > > From: cookb4ueat <bcook@>
                > > > > > > To: Control-X@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Control-X%40yahoogroups.com>
                > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:05 AM
                > > > > > > Subject: [Control-X] Cross Platform Force/Order of Jobs
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Â
                > > > > > > Hi Everyone,
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > We are running Control-M products on both open systems and mainframe
                > > > > > platforms. We are looking to replace a product that resides on the
                > > > > > mainframe that is currently providing some automation around
                > > > > > force/ordering of jobs on the open systems platforms.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > In the Control-M product suite, there is currently not a solution that
                > > > > > allows for when a mainframe job completes that it can force/order in an
                > > > > > open systems job.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > I am looking for feedback from this group on what other tools people use
                > > > > > to perform this task.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Thank you in advance for your responses.
                > > > > > > Brian Cook
                > > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > > ------------------------------------
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Control-X email list does not tolerate spam. For more information
                > > > > > http://s390.8m.com/controlm.html DO NOT Spam this list or any members. To
                > > > > > unsubscribe go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Control-X and click on
                > > > > > User Center. Not affiliated with BMC Software.Yahoo! Groups Links
                > > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > ________________________________
                > > > > This e-mail (and any attachments) may contain information that is confidential and/or protected by law. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
                > > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > ________________________________
                > > > This e-mail (and any attachments) may contain information that is confidential and/or protected by law. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
                > > >
                > >
                >
                >
                > ________________________________
                > This e-mail (and any attachments) may contain information that is confidential and/or protected by law. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.