I agree. I did not mean to imply I immediately rush out and put on the
patch release if it doesn't address something I am specifically looking
for. But even that doesn't always work.
For instance, replication is still very problematic. When we first tried
setting up replication under 6.3.5.100, we had constant problems/failures.
I had one server so screwed up after the initial replication, it refused to
run any replication.
Then 6.3.6.000 came out with tons of fixes addressing replication issues,
including a few I had experienced and needed the fix for. Unfortunately,
after upgrading one server, I was one of the few who starting experiencing
never-ending expiration runs. But replication was better on this server.
Just couldn't run expire inventory.
Now with 7.1.6.3, replication is a lot better. I can actually run most
replications on a daily basis. But I still have replications issues /
failures on an almost daily basis that require hand-fixing.
So, yes I am looking at 7.1.7.x in hopes it fixes replication issues I am
seeing, but unless there is a specific fix - I won't rush to install it.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Stefan Folkerts <stefan.folkerts AT gmail DOT
com
> wrote:
> > Now that the first major patch/update is out, time to play with 7.1.7 and
> > wait for first patches for 8.1.
> >
>
> I wonder how many people look at the releases like that.
> I always try to stick with a.b.c.0 releases unless the interim release (ie
> a.b.c.100) fixes a *specific *issue we are seeing.
> The patch versions are interim fixes and IBM states (in the readme even)
> that they put these releases thru very limited testing.
> So we keep running 7.1.7.0 unless 7.1.7.100 fixes a specific issue we see
> at a specific site or we wait for 7.1.8 to be released that has been more
> extensively tested and contains all the 7.1.7.100 fixes (and more).
> We would never run the a.b.0.0 release for production and always wait for
> the a.b.1.0 release, so 8.1.1.0 would be the first 8 version we would be
> running.
>
> This only applies to the server, with the client we tend to be a little
> more aggressive since features here have a bigger impact on what the
> customer can or cannot use client wise.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Tom Alverson <tom.alverson AT gmail DOT
> > com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > We had a phone meeting with some IBM people last week and they highly
> > > recommended we get the 7.1.7.1 update as we are in the process of
> > upgrading
> > > some older 6.X storage server that are going EOL (next month). They
> did
> > > not explain exactly what the fixes were.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 9:28 AM, David Ehresman <
> > > david.ehresman AT louisville DOT edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > TSM server 7.1.7.1 is available. Does anyone know what changes/fixes
> > it
> > > > has compared to 7.1.7.0.
> > > >
> > > > David
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Zoltan Forray*
> > Spectrum Protect (p.k.a. TSM) Software & Hardware Administrator
> > Xymon Monitor Administrator
> > VMware Administrator
> > Virginia Commonwealth University
> > UCC/Office of Technology Services
> > www.ucc.vcu.edu
> > zforray AT vcu DOT edu - 804-828-4807
> > Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will
> > never use email to request that you reply with your password, social
> > security number or confidential personal information. For more details
> > visit http://infosecurity.vcu.edu/phishing.html
> >
>
--
*Zoltan Forray*
Spectrum Protect (p.k.a. TSM) Software & Hardware Administrator
Xymon Monitor Administrator
VMware Administrator
Virginia Commonwealth University
UCC/Office of Technology Services
www.ucc.vcu.edu
zforray AT vcu DOT edu - 804-828-4807
Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will
never use email to request that you reply with your password, social
security number or confidential personal information. For more details
visit http://infosecurity.vcu.edu/phishing.html
|
