Re: Catching up of 7.1 PTFs

While I have been successful getting PTFs installed, Roberto is right about the I_BASE, it might be best to plan on a slip install.

To avoid that, apply TR3 first, then TR5 and then TR6. There are PTFs in those that expand the space needed to store PTFs. Better to slip install the LIC in the end.

You might also consider permanently applying the current PTFs first too.

Jim Oberholtzer
Chief Technical Architect
Agile Technology Architects


On 6/13/2013 6:17 AM, Roberto José Etcheverry Romero wrote:

Charles,
I tried to get a TR0 7.1 machine up to TR6 with IBM supplied acum dvd
images. Fails miserably with "not enough space on lic disk" (even though
they are 146gb disks and attempting to reserve more for lic code doesnt
work).
Only solution? Get an update I_BASE dvd and do a slip of the new LIC. THEN
install the acum and ptf groups. It will shave a lot of time from the
installation.
Best Regards


On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Jim Oberholtzer<
midrangel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I'm not sure I'm in the "Don't worry about the 'Not Installed'"
> category, since that usually means PTFs are missing. Ordinarily just
> re-applying the cumulative will fix that but it's not something I like
> to leave for very long. You will never know if everything is working as
> it should without all of the PTFs installed. Installing a new LPP is
> one way to get that condition, but there are other ways too, and I don't
> like the untidiness of leaving them uninstalled.
>
> Larry's correct about read the cover letter for TR6, there is a PTF for
> the double IPL's but to be safe I'd plan on watching this one. Also
> it's going to take Larry's "some minutes" (meaning lots) to install.
> Plan and extra couple of hours.
>
> Jim Oberholtzer
> Chief Technical Architect
> Agile Technology Architects
>
>
> On 6/12/2013 11:00 PM, DrFranken wrote:

> > Charles,
> >
> > You WERE Joking that the system is 3 years and 5 TRs behind on

> PTFs and

> > you think you're going to avoid a double IPL?????
> >
> > Of course it's going to work, this IS IBM i after all but you will

> be

> > doing at least two IPLs here. Read the cover letter for TR6 as you may
> > need a special PTF to avoid having to manually IPL multiple times. (I
> > can't recall when that dude came out.)
> >
> > Don't worry about the "Not Installed" as that simply indicates

> that new

> > LPPs (Licensed Program Products) have been installed since that CUME was
> > installed on this machine.
> >
> > - Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis
> >
> > www.frankeni.com
> > www.iDevCloud.com
> > www.iInTheCloud.com
> >
> > On 6/12/2013 10:48 PM, Charles Wilt wrote:

> >> > All,
> >> >
> >> > I've been asked to get a 7.1 system up to date on PTFs...
> >> >
> >> > Since I've been away from the admin side for a while, I thought I'd

> see if

> >> > anybody was aware of any gotchas
> >> >
> >> > Here's what WRKPTFGRP shows
> >> > PTF Group Level Status
> >> > SF99710 10096 Not installed
> >> > SF99710 10229 Not installed
> >> > SF99709 7 Installed
> >> > SF99709 21 Installed
> >> > SF99708 2 Installed
> >> > SF99708 3 Installed
> >> > SF99707 1 Installed
> >> > SF99701 2 Installed
> >> > SF99701 4 Installed
> >> > SF99637 1 Not installed
> >> > SF99627 1 Not installed
> >> > SF99617 2 Not installed
> >> > SF99572 2 Not installed
> >> > SF99572 4 Not installed
> >> > SF99369 2 Installed
> >> > SF99369 4 Installed
> >> > SF99368 2 Not installed
> >> > SF99368 3 Not installed
> >> > SF99367 2 Installed
> >> > SF99366 1 Installed
> >> > SF99366 2 Installed
> >> > SF99362 3 Installed
> >> > SF99362 5 Installed
> >> > SF99145 1 Installed
> >> >
> >> > Now SF99707 is the TR, so I think I should be able to able the

> latest TR

> >> > without a double IPL correct?
> >> >
> >> > I'm a little confused that the cumes (10096& 10229) show not

> installed as

> >> > DSPPTF 5770ss1 shows:
> >> > TC10229 Temporarily applied
> >> > TC10096 Permanently applied
> >> >
> >> > Does anybody see or know of any reason why getting and applying the

> latest

> >> > cume, TR, and other groups might not work?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks!
> >> > Charles
> >> >

> > --

> --