Guys,
I threw a set of V5R4M0 disks in one of the 520 machines and just
watched it do an upgrade to V5R4M5 (We have a few sets of disks for some of
our machines with a different releases on them, and then when we want a
release, we pull the old disks out and insert the set for the version we
want to IPL and IPL).
I did a GO LICPGM, and took option 5. Took the first option on the menu
and then option 1 with just the I_BASE_01 CD in, and put an X after one CD.
When the screen returned, it complained for what to upgrade that it wouldn't
SAVE as it was missing BASE, QGPL, QUSRSYS, and Extended Base (They didn't
have a one next to them and the option field was highlighted). I then took
a 2 off the menu to add additional media to, and put the B2924_01 CD. Let
it read through this, and it got further, with a few more "1"s next to I5/OS
BASE, but still wouldn't let me complete. I then had to add the B2924_02
disk, AND the B29MM_03 disk before it got the extended base. Now it was
happy and I could save this to do the automatic upgrade. I accepted the
5722-999 License, and then did a PWRDWNSYS *CTLRD 60 IPLSRC(D).
System IPLed and loaded the I_BASE_01 545 CD and loaded the LIC. It then
asked for the next disk (B2924_01) and installed the BASE OS and continued
with the other 2 disks.
Afterward, I checked and everything was good. I applied PTFs and was done.
Pete
Pete Massiello
iTech Solutions
http://www.itechsol.com
Add iTech Solutions on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126431824120
Add iTech Solutions on LinkedIn:
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2206093
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of CRPence
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 6:20 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: LIC Upgrade
rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
I don't remember the exact errors I got. I even tried searching
to see if I had an old pmr on this. However if you plan on
upgrading to 545 from 540 or to 611 from 610 one had better
follow the book and eschew what Chuck is saying (even though his
advice is usually golden).
What I have suggested is only that the LIC-only install *should*
be functional according to the design of the system and the way the
[manner in which] PTFs for OS should be created and delivered. That
is, I want to be clear that I am neither advising nor suggesting
that anyone *should* "try this at home" ;-) Although... what harm
would come of someone trying [if already using a manual install
anyway], other than encountering an SRC, from which presumably a
simple IPL up to DST then allows the start of the [since diagnosed
by SRC as a required] OS install.?
FWiW: If such a requirement exists, then a possible origin can be
fathomed by a test; albeit pointless to do so except as proof of
origin for the requirement. By installing the OS "resave" level
with the mystery PTF(s) that apparently are required to come from
the install media versus coming from cumulative PTF media & having
been applied only after a LIC-only install, if a later LIC-only
install is allowed without the SRC, then there is some PTF by either
function or mere existence allows the LIC install to complete
without an SRC. And if that is possible solely by the existence of
the PTF versus any function performed by that PTF during the install
itself, then probably just applying some "marker PTF" would suffice;
problem there however, is that a marker PTF would not be available
on a cumulative since it merely indicates the REsave level for which
the actual installation from that level is required [to effect the
appearance of its being applied].
Chuck,
If you want to know bad enough, just try upgrading some system
from 610 to 611 or from 540 to 545 and see what you get if you
try it with just the LIC CD.
I'll get right on that ;-) ... after I win a lottery; although I
must first get past the "must enter to win" issue. The reason I am
asking, is that I have *no* ability to do that.
Maybe there's a technical reason they do it, like the same reason
they have respins of OS on occasion. Or maybe IBM just insists
on it. Maybe it's because I always do it with image catalogs and
something about the verify process is picky.
I am actually still very familiar with the technical aspects and
the design [I have a good memory for some real useless stuff]; plus
the difference between a "resave" and a "respin" [even more useless
stuff, that only frustrates me for the terms incorrectly being used
interchangeably :-Q]. I am of the opinion that if the development
management and teams are so removed from the original design points
that they would create & deliver a product which disallows the
simplicity of performing a LIC-only install of the point release,
then the system has become even _less_ of a "system" than ever. At
least one highly negative implication is that use of an older SAVSYS
or distribution\DSLO media of the same VRM for the OS would also be
problematic to install from, as part of recovery of the OS-only...
but if that were not problematic, then I am back to wondering why
there would be any enforcement preventing the LIC-only install; i.e.
they will protect one path by a restriction, only to leave another
path dead in the water -- OK, so the likelihood of having to revert
to or even inadvertently installing from older media is rare, but it
does happen.
If the OS is a required part of the install, I wonder why QGPL,
QUSRSYS, & XTND would be required also; or are they? And if they
really are required, then why the noted documentation seems not to
mention that little tidbit; i.e. only installing the OS & PTFs?
Regards, Chuck
midrange.com
