Re: Checking the level of interest

[Trevor Perry <trevor@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Rob,

So, are you interested in a Fireside chat discussing the topic?

Trevor


On 8/29/07 1:49 PM, "rob@xxxxxxxxx" <rob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Trevor,
>
> It is a huge concern.  V6R1 is reminiscent of the CISC-to-RISC upgrade
> with it's requirement of recompiling everything that does not have
> observability and was compiled prior to V5R1.  (V5R1 changed as it kept
> just enough in there to be ready for this when it came.)  There are
> numerous vendor packages that are not ready even though IBM pulled in many
> vendors about a year ago and told them to start preparing.
> The question is, are more vendors going to get the word?  Are those
> vendors that participated earlier going to pull their heads out of... the
> sand?
> Here's a legitimate question:  Is there a statement of support from
> various vendors for V6R1?  Like, for version #.#.# of software XYZ you
> will need fixpack @.@.@
>
> A search of 
> http://www-912.ibm.com/a_dir/as4ptf.nsf/$$search?openform
> for ANZOBJCVN is pulling up some ptf's for V5R3 and V5R4.
> There's a good question:  What ptf's are necessary to get ANZOBJCVN to be
> ready for this?
>
> Boy, all those people that keep thinking this is an AS/400 are in for a
> real treat if they try to skip upgrading by simply doing a save/restore
> from V5R2 or earlier to V6R1.  There's a good question:  How does one
> manually perform ANZOBJCVN in such a situation?  I found a few anomalies
> in early versions of ANZOBJCVN and worked with them as to how to verify it
> manually.
>
> Here's another question:  Since the point of this hassle is to provide
> better performance and to slay FAST/400 (and other attempts to avoid the
> interactive tax), will we stop seeing the huge disclaimer on ptf's for
> V6R1?
>
> See also:
> http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/redp4293.html
>
> Rob Berendt