In our custom reports that we send to users.

-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy Hughes [mailto:Timothy.Hughes AT OIT.STATE.NJ DOT US] 
Sent: July 6, 2004 12:52 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: Node just sitting In-Progress

Tim,

How did you change the description of "In Progress"?

"Rushforth, Tim" wrote:

> Yes, we also change the description of "In Progress" to something
> meaningful!
>
> I think the "?" was more meaningful - in our case the sessions are
never
> "In Progress" when we get this status.
>
> It would be interesting to know if anybody actually gets a status of
"In
> Progress" when there is actually a session in progress.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Byrne [mailto:ted.byrne AT ADELPHIA DOT NET]
> Sent: July 2, 2004 12:09 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: Node just sitting In-Progress
>
> At 12:11 PM 7/2/2004, you wrote:
> >Timothy
> >
> >This is one of my pet hates about TSM.
> >
> >A scheduled backup which is actually in progress - ie actively
> transferring
> >data between client and server - shows a status of 'Started'.
> >A scheduled backup which started but encountered an error, dropped
the
> >session or whatever shows a status of 'In Progress'.
> >
> >Am I the only one who thinks this is the wrong way round?
>
> FWIW, This is a pet annoyance for me as well, and I'm a big fan of
> TSM.  The "In progress" status originally showed up as "(?)" which was
> probably more accurate than what it was changed to.  (I would mentally
> read
> that as 'Huh?'.)
>
> When we originally encountered the non-exceptional (?) status, which
> certainly qualifies as an exception in my book, we chose translate
that
> into a status of "Incomplete" in the scripts we were using to report
on
> event status.  After it was changed to "In Progress", we changed our
> scripts to translate the new description to "Incomplete" as well.  It
> seemed to convey the actual state of affairs more accurately.
>
> I seem to recall that when I read the original APAR that was opened
> about
> the (?) status, there was a  strong argument that this should be
> classified
> as an exception when using "q ev".  This is obviously not what they
> chose
> to do.
>
> Curiously, the APAR describing the status change to "In progress"
> (IC33373)
> discusses long-running events, and uses "restartable" to describe
them.
> In
> our experience, it almost always indicates a failure of the client
(such
> as
> the scheduler service/daemon freezing or dying).  I can't recall ever
> seeing one of these events restarted.
>
> -Ted