I believe that the respin only includes the RE PTFs, but I can't say for
sure. It's been a long time and whenever I have used a respin I've
immediately either installed a cume or upgraded.
Regards,
Scott Ingvaldson
Senior IBM Support Specialist
Midwest Region Data Center
Fiserv.
-----Original Message-----
From: rob@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:rob@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 2:17 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: IPL hangs at C900 2967, PTF SI30387 on a V5R4 system
Actually, in a RESAVE, would some of them even be considered PTF's
anymore or part of the "base"?
Rob Berendt
--
Group Dekko Services, LLC
Dept 01.073
Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com
From:
"Ingvaldson, Scott" <scott.ingvaldson@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
"Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
06/05/2009 02:22 PM
Subject:
RE: IPL hangs at C900 2967, PTF SI30387 on a V5R4 system
Sent by:
midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Most of them can't justify the expense in keeping their system
current.
As opposed to the expense of *not* keeping their system current? IMO
this is a classic example of the dangers of not staying current: what
should be "normal" procedure instead becomes a "big deal" simply because
it hasn't been done for years. Meanwhile this customer who "can't
justify
the expense" of downtime just gets further backlevel and loaded up with
the proverbial "Integrity Problems." If your customer's uptime is so
mission critical that they can't spare an hour two or three times a year
they really need to be on an HA system.
And i can't really see how your procedure would prevent issues with
what is very clearly a bug in an IBM PTF.
In this particular case it probably wouldn't have helped as this problem
was in an O/S PTF, however in a more typical backlevel PTF situation
this
procedure would allow a fresh load of all MF PTFs in proper order,
without
the potential problems of defective and test PTFs previously applied.
Regards,
Scott Ingvaldson
Senior IBM Support Specialist
Midwest Region Data Center
Fiserv.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lukas Beeler [mailto:lukas.beeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 10:32 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: IPL hangs at C900 2967, PTF SI30387 on a V5R4 system
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 15:25, <rob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Next time you're three years behind on PTF's you might consider my
suggestion of:
Please, don't say "you". My machines are all current!
- Doing DSPPTF OUTPUT(*PRINT). Rerun to an outfile also.
- Upgrading them to a recent 'resave' of V5R4M5.
- Applying the latest cumes and groups and etc.
No chance in hell. It's far to expensive for a customer to do that -
that's also the reason why most of them are badly behind on PTFs.
Getting one of our typical customer machines patched takes roughly 4
hours, if they're recent. 8 or more if they're not.Most of them can't
justify the expense in keeping their system current.
Problem is that most OS service functions perform _extremely_ poorly on
entry-level hardware (2 or 4 arms configs, 1-4GB RAM).
Second reason (other than to avoid ptf hang) is that you will now have
them on 545 which will make it easier for them to upgrade to Power 6
hardware.
At the time they decide to get a new machine, we will probably be on
Power
8. They just bought one three years ago!
No, it doesn't make sense. I can't really argue the customers case,
because i think what they're is very well thought out, but these are the
facts.
And i can't really see how your procedure would prevent issues with what
is very clearly a bug in an IBM PTF.
--
Read my blog at
http://projectdream.org
midrange.com
