RE: Immediate PTF -- What's the point?

Rob:

I guess the obvious answer is that you don't have to IPL in any of those 
cases... :-)

However, the description of this PTF:

DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM FIXED FOR APAR SE09574 :
-----------------------------------------------
   When attempting to access a QShell script stored on the QNTC file system the 
operation fails with qsh: 001-0018.

CORRECTION FOR APAR SE09574 :
-----------------------------
   QShell scripts stored on the QNTC file system can be accessed.

...seems as if a couple other possibilities might work. Perhaps ending and 
restarting/resetting NetServer? Or maybe just starting QSH again? Often for an 
immediate PTF you can simply restart/reinitialize the affected component. 
There's seldom a need to totally close down all activity.

By using the delayed/immediate terminology since the beginning of the OS/400 
era, expectations get set. In this case, I was just caught off guard and 
wondered. The previous comment that this is more of an "image" solution, 
whereby IBM can count fewer "requires IPL to apply" PTFs, still seems the 
correct answer. (Wasn't that your thought?)

Tom Liotta

midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>   6. RE: Immediate PTF -- What's the point?
>
>What's the point then of releasing a ptf as immediate if it requires any
>of the following:
>- You must bring the system into a restricted state.
>- You must end TCP/IP
>- Or, in the olden days, you must vary off/on all twinaxial controllers.
>Depending you your situation, you might as well have to apply it delayed.
>
>
>Please review the cover letter for V5R2 5722SS1-SI08258. Although the PTF
>can be applied immediate or delayed, there are explicit "ACTIVATION
>INSTRUCTIONS:" that effectively cause this to be a delayed PTF even if
>applied immediate. And I did in fact apply it immediate.
>
>My question was about the point of IBM's releasing this as allowing
>immediate even though an IPL was still needed. Overall, I wasn't so much
>complaining as simply trying to get ideas about why IBM did it this way.
>
>I.e., What's the point?
>
>Tom Liotta
>
>midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>   9. Re: Immediate PTF -- What's the point? (Al Barsa)
>>
>>I've been watching this thread, and this statement is incorrect.
>>
>>At 08:17 PM 4/7/2003, you wrote:
>>>    If this PTF is applied as an immediate PTF, an IPL of the system is
>>> required to activate this PTF.

-- 
-- 
Tom Liotta
The PowerTech Group, Inc.
19426 68th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Phone  253-872-7788 x313
Fax    253-872-7904
http://www.powertechgroup.com


__________________________________________________________________
Try AOL and get 1045 hours FREE for 45 days!
http://free.aol.com/tryaolfree/index.adp?375380

Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 for FREE! Download Now!
http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455