× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  1.  Home
  2. MIDRANGE-L
  3. May 2001

Re: why cum ptf apply faster than predicted?

  • Subject: Re: why cum ptf apply faster than predicted?
  • From: "Steve Richter" <srichter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 13:34:24 -0400
 
>
>PTFs installed successfully, but actions pending.
>
>Looks good, but verify also with:
>DSPPTF SELECT(*ACTRQD)


good point. thank you. just did it. here are the results:

DSPPTF SELECT(*ACTRQD)
No PTFs met selection criteria.

I want to blast ibm about their estimates being way off, but I am still not
sure that all is ok because, well, .... we ran in so much less time than
their estimate.

I will place a service call in the next few days to make sure.

Steve



+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...
Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.