>From all the posts I've been reading, 4.2.anything is NOT where you want to be -- the sunset date for 4.2 support is April 15, 2003 -- less than six months away.
I am working with a customer who's on 4.2.2.12, we plan to upgrade to 5.1.1.6 -- which (currently) seems to be the cleanest 5.1 release out there; 5.1.5.x is still getting lots of "flack" for regressing things that got fixed back in 4.2.2.x. I'd rather step up to 5.1.something, and fight thru the bugs -- there are some nice features I'd like to exploit (like MOVE NODEDATA); if 5.2 (whatever it gets called) comes in April, or somewhere close, that still gives them a year to contemplate the next step-up level to maintain currency (for support purposes). FYI, 4.2.2.13 = 9/25/02; 5.1.5.1 = 10/11/02; 5.1.1.6 = 9/13/02... No (public) server patches since these three; and, the "skinny" on 5.1.5.0 was to forget about running that level, get 5.1.5.1 patch level if you need 5.1.5. And we've seen the posts about troubles with 5.1.5.1. Given the history of recent point-releases, 4.2.3.0 should be better than most (though it did regress some items shipped in the patch levels for 4.2.2)... caveat emptor, still! That's my 2-cents worth. Don France Technical Architect -- Tivoli Certified Consultant Tivoli Storage Manager, WinNT/2K, AIX/Unix, OS/390 San Jose, Ca (408) 257-3037 mailto:don_france@;att.net Professional Association of Contract Employees (P.A.C.E. -- www.pacepros.com) -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@;VM.MARIST.EDU]On Behalf Of Paul Miller Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM reliability So far, I haven't had any major issues with 4.2.3.0 on Win2k. Over the next couple weeks, I'll be putting other platforms (AIX, HP-UX) to the same version. I'll let you know how it goes. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:msimpson@;UKY.EDU] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 15:40 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM reliability At 13:08 -0600 11/1/02, Tab Trepagnier wrote: >I understand what you're saying and largely agree. But in TSM's case that >would be the x.x.0.0 release. And history has shown those to be pretty >much uniformly bad. > >It's the reported poor quality of the maintenance releases intended to fix >THOSE problems - the x.x.x.0 releases - that are the real shame. I guess the solution is to avoid any release with a dot in it. Ten days ago, we asked IBM for a recommendation on which release we should upgrade to, since it seems to be universally agreed that our 4.2.2.0 is not a good place to be. So far, they haven't been able to recommend a good release. -- Matt Simpson -- OS/390 Support 219 McVey Hall -- (859) 257-2900 x300 University Of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506 <mailto:msimpson@;uky.edu> mainframe -- An obsolete device still used by thousands of obsolete companies serving billions of obsolete customers and making huge obsolete profits for their obsolete shareholders. And this year's run twice as fast as last year's.
