>From my perspective it isn't the install/fallback that is of primary concern (though it IS a concern - consider if there's an ICF catalog change and toleration PTF's are required), it's for sites with multiple concurrent images that do crazy things like share spool or sysplex couple data sets. These sites tend to upgrade System A to the new release and share those things with the other systems running the older release. Over time they will then cycle each of the systems to the newer release. *THAT* is not supported. So a multi-image site may well be faced with a multiple system cold-turkey big bang upgrade. I'm sure they hand out T-shirts afterwards but I'd prefer to get one from a beach resort instead.
IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> wrote on 08/03/2009 06:59:48 PM: > Rick, Rick, Rick. Supported, supported, supported. Fud, fud, fud. Here we > go again. > Okay, for the sake of argument, and to make this short, just what part of > migrating from 1.4 to 1.9 do you think is not supported? The move itself, > of course it is. The fall back? Just who do you think would support it if > the move were from 1.8 to 1.9? Will IBM come to your site and help you fall > back from 1.9 to 1.8, NO, the same goes fro 1.9 back to 1.4. IBM isn't > going to abandon you either, no matter which version you fall back to. It > would be silly to think that your migration fall back plan should include > what anyone at IBM might or might not do to help. There is no reason that > you cannot fall back (with planning). But that same planning goes for 1.9 > back to 1.8 as well. > Not every release of z/OS is even worth the conversion to in the first > place. Some of them have been less than stellar. In fact, in the not so > recent past there have been several in a row that were not worth the trouble. > Soapbox time.... > I think it's silly to put out a new release of the operating system every > year whether or not there is enough in it to really justify the release. I > was dead set against the 2x per year thing a few years back and, thankfully, > it was reduced to only once a year, but even that is really too much. What > tends to happen now is that many sites don't apply "normal" maintenance, > they just wait for the next release every September and use the "upgrade" as > a maintenance vehicle. > End Soapbox > Rick, Sorry for the soapbox thing, and I apologize if I offended anyone with > my rant against "supported". I do not mean to upset anyone, but I just > don't see the purpose of telling anyone that a conversion to the current > version isn't "supported". Some of these sites have really "good" reasons > for not being current, many of them are economy related or manpower related, > and scaring them into thinking that they now have to spend even more time > and money to get current again is just wrong. > Sorry again Rick, > Brian > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO > Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
