ADSM-L

Re: [ADSM-L] Reg: tsm ba client autodeploy package 7.1.4.1

2016-05-17 11:38:40
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Reg: tsm ba client autodeploy package 7.1.4.1
From: Bjoern Rackoll <backup.rackoll AT RRZ.UNI-HAMBURG DOT DE>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:36:43 +0200
Hi Neil, hi all (especially TSM dev),

I got a similar statement today from IBM support.

There is no official communication for that, but support says that one
reason is that they intend to publish client fixpacks about every three
months in the future.

So first, why is there no official statement?

Second, why isn't the release schedule changed first and then ceased to
publish autodeployment packages for interim fixes?

And third, as Neil already said, why aren't customers allowed to
continue to deploy interim fixes if that is necessary?

@IBM: PMR number can be provided upon request.

Regards,

    Bjoern


> Srikanth
> 
> I complained about the very same thing last month:
> https://adsm.org/lists/html/ADSM-L/2016-03/msg00008.html
> 
> I've since discovered that IBM have indeed made the decision to no longer 
> supply exported packages for interim fixes. If you're using auto-deployment 
> then you need to find another mechanism for pushing out interim fixes because 
> it now only works for fix packs. (But then if you've got such a mechanism, 
> why bother with TSM auto-deployment in the first place?)
> 
> I've not given up hope that IBM will see how perverse this approach is and 
> reverse its decision. The current client fix pack (7.1.4) was released in 
> November and was followed by a flash in February which described how data 
> loss could occur and recommended 7.1.4.1 be installed on vulnerable systems. 
> How exactly did they think large shops were supposed to push that update out 
> to affected systems? Maybe customers should wait for the 7.1.5 client? No, 
> hang on - they skipped that one so we're currently waiting on 7.1.6 with its 
> associated .EXP files.
> 
> I agree that there are good reasons why customers should think carefully 
> before auto-deploying interim fixes. For what it's worth I think IBM should 
> tell them the reasons, publish the exported packages anyway and give them the 
> *choice* of being able to perform tightly targeted deployments where there is 
> a requirement to do so.
> 
> Regards
> Neil
> 
> 
> 
> Neil Schofield
> Tivoli Storage Manager SME
> Backup & Recovery | Storage & Middleware | Central Infrastructure Services | 
> Infrastructure & Service Delivery | Group IT
> LLOYDS BANKING GROUP



-- 
Björn Rackoll
Universität Hamburg
Regionales Rechenzentrum
Zentrale Dienste
Schlüterstr. 70
20146 Hamburg
Tel.: +49 (0)40 42838 - 63 11
Fax: +49 (0)40 42838 - 62 70
Mobil: +49 (0)172 427 0301
E-Mail: backup AT mailman.rrz.uni-hamburg DOT de

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>