I believe, when IBM was working on the zap, I was told that there was a
problem moving from the 4.1 version - something about a legacy member table
instead of the backup groups table problem. I'm running at the 5.2.1.1 level
with the zap.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stumpf, Joachim [mailto:joachim.stumpf AT DATEV DOT DE]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 9:19 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: Z/OS and TSM - preferred server level??


Jim,

I didn't recognize that you are at 4.1.
I think theres no problem with the upgrade for you, because the problems we
had were with the systemobjects of windows nodes which were included with
4.2.

Our migrations:
3.7 --> 4.1.3 --> 4.1.5 --> 5.1.0.0 --> 5.1.1.6 --> 5.1.5.0 --> 5.1.5.3 -->
5.1.6.1 ---> 5.1.6.3 and now we are migrating to 5.2.1.1
I think our problems with the systemobjects occured somewhere during
migration from 4.1.5 to 5.1.6.3.

-- 
mit freundlichen Grüßen
Joachim Stumpf
      

------------- Original-Nachricht folgt -------------

Joachim,

Thanks, I remember seeing something about this earlier. I wonder if it
applies, though, as we are moving from 4.1.x and the problem description
specifically references 4.2 and 5.1

>From what release did you jump to 5.1.6?

"Stumpf, Joachim" wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> at the moment we are migrating from 5.1.6.3 to 5.2.1.1.
> If you are at 4.x you should have a look at:
> http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg1PQ80211
> 
> We had big problems with the performance during upgradedb (AuditDB run 80h
with a 16GB database and used over 65h CPU).
> After the ZAP the Upgradedb took nearly 30min and used 3min. CPU.
> 
> So the ZAP mentioned in the ARPAR worked for us.
> 
> Good Luck ;-)
> 
> --
> mit freundlichen Grüßen / regards
> Joachim Stumpf
> 
> 
> ------------- Original-Nachricht folgt -------------
> 
> We are closing in on bringing up Z/OS 1.4 and with it a new version of
> TSM server. It looks like 5.1.7 was delivered with our server pac (FMID
> HDN5510). In a meeting earlier this week a Tivoli rep recommended that
> we go ahead and pull down the latest server level (5.2.1 w/5.2.2 due in
> early Dec.)
> 
> Any recommendations or experiences with this platform and TSM levels out
> there worth passing along? We're currently at 4.1.4.2
> 
> As always, thanks in advance!
> 
> --
> Jim Kirkman
> AIS - Systems
> UNC-Chapel Hill
> 966-5884

-- 
Jim Kirkman
AIS - Systems
UNC-Chapel Hill
966-5884