>From all the posts I've been reading, 4.2.anything is NOT where you want to
be -- the sunset date for 4.2 support is April 15, 2003 -- less than six
months away.
I am working with a customer who's on 4.2.2.12, we plan to upgrade to
5.1.1.6 -- which (currently) seems to be the cleanest 5.1 release out there;
5.1.5.x is still getting lots of "flack" for regressing things that got
fixed back in 4.2.2.x.
I'd rather step up to 5.1.something, and fight thru the bugs -- there are
some nice features I'd like to exploit (like MOVE NODEDATA); if 5.2
(whatever it gets called) comes in April, or somewhere close, that still
gives them a year to contemplate the next step-up level to maintain currency
(for support purposes).
FYI,
4.2.2.13 = 9/25/02;
5.1.5.1 = 10/11/02;
5.1.1.6 = 9/13/02...
No (public) server patches since these three; and, the "skinny" on 5.1.5.0
was to forget about running that level, get 5.1.5.1 patch level if you need
5.1.5. And we've seen the posts about troubles with 5.1.5.1. Given the
history of recent point-releases, 4.2.3.0 should be better than most (though
it did regress some items shipped in the patch levels for 4.2.2)... caveat
emptor, still!
That's my 2-cents worth.
Don France
Technical Architect -- Tivoli Certified Consultant
Tivoli Storage Manager, WinNT/2K, AIX/Unix, OS/390
San Jose, Ca
(408) 257-3037
mailto:don_france AT att DOT net
Professional Association of Contract Employees
(P.A.C.E. -- www.pacepros.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU]On Behalf Of
Paul Miller
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:48 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: TSM reliability
So far, I haven't had any major issues with 4.2.3.0 on Win2k. Over the
next couple weeks, I'll be putting other platforms (AIX, HP-UX) to the
same version. I'll let you know how it goes.
-----Original Message-----
From: msimpson AT UKY DOT EDU [mailto:msimpson AT UKY DOT EDU]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 15:40
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: TSM reliability
At 13:08 -0600 11/1/02, Tab Trepagnier wrote:
>I understand what you're saying and largely agree. But in TSM's case
that
>would be the x.x.0.0 release. And history has shown those to be pretty
>much uniformly bad.
>
>It's the reported poor quality of the maintenance releases intended to
fix
>THOSE problems - the x.x.x.0 releases - that are the real shame.
I guess the solution is to avoid any release with a dot in it.
Ten days ago, we asked IBM for a recommendation on which release we
should upgrade to, since it seems to be universally agreed that our
4.2.2.0 is not a good place to be. So far, they haven't been able to
recommend a good release.
--
Matt Simpson -- OS/390 Support
219 McVey Hall -- (859) 257-2900 x300
University Of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506
<mailto:msimpson AT uky DOT edu>
mainframe -- An obsolete device still used by thousands of obsolete
companies serving billions of obsolete customers and making huge
obsolete
profits for their obsolete shareholders. And this year's run twice as
fast
as last year's.
|
