Savrstlib Not Releasing After Job Completed on Source System

We are currently trying to use the savrstlib command between our source and target iSeries systems.  The transfer happens successfully; however, on the source system we need to kill the job otherwise we cannot access the files on the target system.  Is there a reason why the job wouldn't end on the source system if it is actually successful considering we checked the data on the target system upon killing the job?

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.

-Anthony
LVL 1
Anthony6890Asked:
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

Anthony6890Author Commented:
Sorry, as an update we've been doing savrstobj and not savrstlib.
0
Gary PattersonVP Technology / Senior Consultant Commented:
I can' think of any reason that SAVRSTOBJ should be holding locks on objects after the save portion of the task completes.  If I recall correctly, SAVRSTOBJ just:

  • Creates a temporary save file
  • Executes the SAVOBJ command to save the specified objects to the save file (any source object locks should be released once this step completes)
  • Transmits the save file to the target system
  • Restores the objects from the save file on the target system

Can you provide the following:

1) Specific SAVRSTOBJ command that you are executing, with all parameters

2) Job log from save job on source system

3) Job locks (from DSPJOB) from the save job on the source system.

4) Job log from restore job on target system

5) Job locks from the restore job on the target system

6) WRKOBJLCK command on one of the locked objects on the target system before the source job is terminated.
0
Anthony6890Author Commented:
Hi Gary, thanks for getting back to me. Give me a day or so to get you all that information.

Thanks.

Anthony
0
Anthony6890Author Commented:
Gary, it looks like the reason why it wasn't ending correctly was because of an actual WAN connection issue.  We've had some very successful tests so far, so we are content with the results.  Thank you for your suggestions on this.

-Anthony
0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
Anthony6890Author Commented:
Our issue ended up being outside the scope of the actual commands and the 400 itself and was instead the physical connection between the two locations.
0
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
IBM System i

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.

Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.