Jerry,
        I noticed the same thing when I went to apply this maintenance - this
isn't the type of thing I enjoy seeing in the holddata, particularly
give the time it takes to restore an ADSM database.  Prior to applying
the maintenance, I took a full database dump as well as doing a DFSMSdss
dump (with ADSM shutdown).  Thankfully I have a test ADSM server where I
applied the maintenance first to test it out before applying it to our
production ADSM servers.  We've been running at this maintenance level
since 5/9/96 and haven't run in to any problems (we're at MVS/ESA 4.3).


Tim Pittson
tpittson AT himail.hcc DOT com

>----------
>From:  Jerry Lawson[SMTP:jlawson AT ITTHARTFORD DOT COM]
>Sent:  Tuesday, May 28, 1996 12:38 PM
>To:    Multiple recipients of list ADSM-L
>Subject:       MVS PTF UN87799 Installation
>
>---------------------------- Forwarded with Changes
>---------------------------
>From: Jerry Lawson at TISDMAIL
>Date: 5/17/96 2:09PM
>To: higmx.oas at SNADGATE
>Subject: MVS PTF UN87799 Installation
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-------
>
>Date:     May 17, 1996            Time:    13:59
>From:    Jerry Lawson
>    ITT Hartford Insurance Group
>    (203) 547-2960    jlawson AT itthartford DOT com
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----
>I don't like to post the same question to the list twice, but I got no
>response on this one the first time.  I did post it on Friday th 17th,
>and
>there seemed to be an outage to the server about then, so perhaps
>either this
>didn't get fully distributed, or some responses were lost.  At any
>rate, I
>received no responses.  (I am lonely and need the mail - NOT)  :-)
>
>We went to install PTF UN87799 to the MVS Server.  Much to our
>surprise, the
>Hold data said that we could not go back to an earlier maintenance
>level of
>the server because of changes to the Devclass macro.  This causes us
>major
>problems because we have two levels of MVS  on our test system (MVS
>version
>5.2.2, and MVS 4.3), and we go back and forth between the two for
>customer
>compatibility testing.  The same set of ADSM databases and pools
>areavailable
>on both release levels.
>
>My question - I can understand that if I utilize the new functions in
>the
>devclass macro, then I wouldn't be able to go back.  However, since we
>don't
>need the new functions, and will not be using them, can we still jump
>between
>the different levels without a problem?  Obviously, I could apply the
>maintenance to both systems, but then it would have to be "cold turkey"
>- put
>it up and hope for the best.  Also, the documentation made no mention
>of what
>to do for fallback - is this a standard "restore the DB" situation, as
>documented in the manuals, or are there any special considerations or
>"tricks"
>to speed up a recovery if needed?
>
>
>************************************************************************
>*****
>Jerry Lawson
>ITT Hartford Insurance Group
>jlawson AT itthartford DOT com
>