On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:55:27 -0500, Robert A. Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 22:58 -0800 on 01/04/2008, shai hess wrote about Re: SMP/E and why not.: > >My biggest gripe with the design of SMP/E is the use of a RESTORE >design that will back-out a PTF (or set of PTFs) to get back to the >state you were in (or would have been in) before you APPLY'ed the >PTF(s). Right now you must RESTORE PTFs that you will just turn >around a reAPPLY just to RESTORE a PTF that PREs or SUPs the PTFs. A >better design is to see what SYSMOD owns each element that is being >RESTOREd and just do an automatic APPLY of only that element instead >of removing elements that are not contained in the PTF being RESTOREd. > >IOW: PTF1 contains elements A and B and PTF2 (which PREs PTF1) >contains an updated element B. To Restore PTF2 you should not need to >ALSO restore PTF1 (which then needs to be reAPPLY'ed) but just use >the PTF1 version of B to replace the PTF2 version of B. The current >implementation of RESTORE forces a string of PTFs to get RESTOREd >(only to then get APPLY'ed again) due to the fact that the contents >of the PTF getting RESTOREd intersects multiple PTFs (each of which >contain elements not in the PTF being backed out). > I agree... it can be a pain - I just had that situation the other day after a LE PTF I just applied for RSU0709 went PE. There is no GROUPEXTEND for RESTORE. You end up doing several RESTORE GROUP attempts, look at the output and keep adding sysmods until it works. Then you can use the RESTORE report to re-apply. But you can also accept PTF1 if it ends up getting messy You just have to decide if it is too soon or not to accept PTF1. If you've already been running on it and haven't had a problem... then there probably is no reason not to accept it. Even if it goes PE, the probably is likely to be rare or not applicable to your environment. In my case above, even though the PTF was from RSU0709 it hadn't been running anywhere yet, so I wanted to restore it (we stay one quarterly RSU behind current quarter). The real problem I've run into is that many sysprogs think you should never ACCEPT anything. I don't know where / when that was taught to sysprogs, but you'd be amazed how many live by that philosophy. Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.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
