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.folke...@gmail.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.alver...@gmail.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.ehres...@louisville.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 > > zfor...@vcu.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 zfor...@vcu.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
