Re: Cume PTF

[Charles Wilt <charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jerry,

I think you understand, but you worded it wrong.

Each cume and group PTF's are cumulative ( thus the name ;) )

Installing the most recent cume, gives you PTFs since the last cume
plus everything on the prior cumes all the way back to the first one
for the release.  (disregarding PTF's marked as defective)

Group PTF's work the same.

Thus you only ever need install the most recent.

HTH,
Charles

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Jerry Adams <Jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Larry,
>
> Doesn't each CUME (and Group) for a release include all of the PTFs since the previous one?  That is, one can be at Level 12 for a Group and apply Level 20 (skipping 13-19).  I read this years ago, but this discussion led me to want to verify this with an expert.  Can you point me to one? .-)
>
> Jerry C. Adams
> IBM System i Programmer/Analyst
> This portion of "Women on the Run" is brought to you by Phillip's Milk of Magnesia. - Harry Von Zell, radio announcer (1950's)
> --
> B&W Wholesale
> office: 615-995-7024
> email:  jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of DrFranken
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 7:47 PM
> To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Cume PTF
>
>  Link Loder errors were HUGELY reduced with V5R3M5 and newer SLIC
> levels. Much of the problem was simply not enough space reserved for the
> work required when a large number of PTFs were applied. With V5R3M5 and
> newer that space was expanded 'dramatically' and I've been told 'you
> can't apply too many PTFs at once' and break the link loader in that
> way.  I last tested this with V5R4M0 base load and then applying every
> PTF group I had available including CUME, DB, HIPER, HTTP, JAVA, Windows
> Integration, TCP, PRINT, Websphere and probably more. It did not break.
>
> Others mention staying 'more current' on PTFs will reduce link loader
> errors. I'm not sure this is a true statement any longer, however,
> staying current for other reasons *IS* the right thing to do!
>
>  - Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis
>
> > > Link Loader errors are usually caused by specific problems, like co-dependant PTFs that are not applied at the same time.  If you install complete packages (cume or group) delayed with an IPL and don't have any test PTFs applied you'll probably never have a link loader error.  Applying packages on a regular schedule (like 2 or 4 times a year) will do wonders as far as minimizing these kinds of problems.  Systems requiring 24x7x365 uptime are harder to deal with.
> > >
> > > C8305540 would have been released on the 305th day of 2008 so it's approx. 2 years old.  Applying a more current cume for V5R4 might be the prudent thing to do.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > >
> > > Not my responsibility, but the thread concerning WRKPTFGRP made me a tad curious.  Last cum applied is C8305540.  Is there some magic way to know if a cum can be applied successfully - no link loader error, for example?
>
> --
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>
> --
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.