Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to.
Dan, Thank-you for responding. More generally, thank-you for monitoring u2-list so closely. So, under the theory that no good deed should go unpunished, I have a couple follow-up questions for you. 1. Your *planning* comment confuses me. It can be taken 2 ways. Are you saying Rocket is (a) planning NOT to do 11.1.x bug fix releases; or (b) not CURRENTLY planning any such bug fix releases because none have been identified yet? For example, John Hester's localtime() / telnet problem surfaced in 11.1 (telnet handling changed dramatically at 11.1 to accommodate the Date Replication changes), I would think you would offer an 11.1.x bug fix so a user does not need to do a major jump to 11.2 to get the fix. I suppose it depends on whether there is a good workaround, Mr. Hester seems satisfied with his. Because 11.1 is still in GA status, and because 11.2 is still young, I would think bugs that are found to be in 11.1 would still be fixed with an 11.1.16, .17, etc.. At this late stage of 11.1 I would think the only releases would be unplanned bug fixes. Yes, unplanned until another 11.1 bug is found, but once found, let the planning commence. If you've followed this thread, you'll recall my organization is extraordinarily reluctant to make install major uv releases w/o extensive regression testing due to past wounds. If we encounter a bug in 11.1.15 will we be told, sorry, no fix unless you upgrade to 11.2.x? That won't sit well. It even negates my reason for going to the highest 11.1.x instead of a point release with a plethora of current satisfied users. 2. The version numbering scheme itself confuses me. What sort of thing would call for a jump from 11.x to 12.1? (Or will it be 12.0?) vs. 11.n to 11.[n+1] ? Why was it called 11.1 instead of 10.4? The new Metadata Manager (U2 MDM) was introduced in 11.1.11, a minor point release. To my way of thinking, that would have triggered 11.2. And the existing new 11.2 would have been called 12.1. I thought the minor point releases were generally for bug fixess, not new functionality. Maybe you could clarify the naming scheme? Thanks in advance, Chuck On 2/28/2014 8:25 PM, Daniel McGrath wrote: Hi Charles, It does not affect Windows. At this point, we are not *planning* any further 11.1.x releases so we can focus on the 11.2.x and .NEXT releases of UniVerse and moving the technology forward. I also misspoke on 11.2.4 as it was a mistake in our issue system. It is actually 11.2.3. Regards, Dan -Original Message- From: Charles Stevenson Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 9:31 AM is this unix-, linux-specific or windows, too? Fix in 11.2.4, but in 11.1.16 too? That's the usual practice, isn't it? On 2/28/2014 6:50 PM, Daniel McGrath wrote: As an FYI, I'm sitting in a meeting now were we are pulling a check-in to use a re-entrant version of the function for our latest build to fix this issue. You should expect a fix in 11.2.4 unless something goes wrong. Regards, Dan -Original Message- From: John Hester Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:59 PM We migrated from UV 10.2.7 on RedHat 5.1 x86 to 11.1.13 on RedHat 6.4 x64 last November. I've since run into a bug that can reveal itself when tty processes are terminated. It could be unique to linux, but you may want to watch for it. The symptoms are that terminated UV tty processes disappear from LISTU and PORT.STATUS, but continue to exist in the process table and consume a UV per-seat license. I discovered the issue when we ran out of licenses after a couple of months of uptime and I initially couldn't figure out where they went. Running the ps command at the OS level revealed their existence. I'm guessing the issue occurs on maybe 1 out of 200 or 300 tty sessions. The root cause of the issue is the localtime() function being called from the signal handler. The localtime() function is not POSIX async-signal-safe, which means it can't be safely called from there. The function acquires a lock which may already be held by the process that was interrupted by the signal if it too was in localtime(). When this happens, a deadlock is the result and the process is in limbo forever. I was able to easily work around the issue by having cron run a script after hours every day to clean up any hung UV processes and recover the licenses. I opened a ticket with Rocket, and they're planning to include a fix for the issue in 11.2.4. I'm happy to provide my workaround script to anyone who runs into this on a linux or unix box. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how one would craft a workaround on Windows. -John ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to.
Hi Chuck, 1) We have not scheduled any further bug fixes for 11.1. If something critical comes up that doesn't have a work-around and there are solid reasons people cannot move to 11.2.x to receive the bug-fix, we would investigate a further 11.1.x bug fix release. As a general rule we try to make sure we strike the right balance of focusing on moving the technology forward and making sure we meet business realities. As building QA'ing products is expensive in time, even for bug-fixes, the longer we back-port fixes to a not latest version it reduces the number of both new features and bug-fixes for those that stay on the current major versions. As before, if you encounter a bug in 11.1.15, it will depend on several factors and the response we be based upon knowing them. For instance, I'm fairly confident that fixing something non-critical like a misspelled log message wouldn't be back-ported whereas a critical security bug probably would. 2) Why the potential jump to 12.1? Well, you'll just have to see, but it would seem it should be something big, right? :). I say potential as I'm a big fan of Nothing is real in software until it's been shipped. 10.3 to 11.1 predates my involvement, but the reason was a major change throughout the product. It was an underlying change that affected essentially the entire product. This was needed to implement an enhanced version of UniData's replication system to replaced UniVerse's original one which had several short-comings that were not salvageable. While U2 MDM did have some changes to UniVerse, they really were minor and didn't involve affecting existing functionality. From that point of view it was some trivial tweaks to support an external tool. We now try to follow x.y.z versioning, where 'x' indicates huge architectural changes either to the product internally or for users of the software. 'y' indicates major features and major bugfixes, 'z' indicates minor bug-fixes and the occasional minor enhancement. We do try to minimize enhancements at this level, although occasionally it is commercially unavoidable. As to your comment on due to past wounds, this is something we have talked extensively about as a team last year and re-iterated at our kick-off meeting for 2014. Enabling customers to be confident that they came upgrade from current-1 to current is of paramount importance to us. If you run into anything new we introduce that breaks that goal, after you've raised via the normal channel, send me a email personally with the issue reference number. Regards, Dan -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 2:14 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. Dan, Thank-you for responding. More generally, thank-you for monitoring u2-list so closely. So, under the theory that no good deed should go unpunished, I have a couple follow-up questions for you. 1. Your *planning* comment confuses me. It can be taken 2 ways. Are you saying Rocket is (a) planning NOT to do 11.1.x bug fix releases; or (b) not CURRENTLY planning any such bug fix releases because none have been identified yet? For example, John Hester's localtime() / telnet problem surfaced in 11.1 (telnet handling changed dramatically at 11.1 to accommodate the Date Replication changes), I would think you would offer an 11.1.x bug fix so a user does not need to do a major jump to 11.2 to get the fix. I suppose it depends on whether there is a good workaround, Mr. Hester seems satisfied with his. Because 11.1 is still in GA status, and because 11.2 is still young, I would think bugs that are found to be in 11.1 would still be fixed with an 11.1.16, .17, etc.. At this late stage of 11.1 I would think the only releases would be unplanned bug fixes. Yes, unplanned until another 11.1 bug is found, but once found, let the planning commence. If you've followed this thread, you'll recall my organization is extraordinarily reluctant to make install major uv releases w/o extensive regression testing due to past wounds. If we encounter a bug in 11.1.15 will we be told, sorry, no fix unless you upgrade to 11.2.x? That won't sit well. It even negates my reason for going to the highest 11.1.x instead of a point release with a plethora of current satisfied users. 2. The version numbering scheme itself confuses me. What sort of thing would call for a jump from 11.x to 12.1? (Or will it be 12.0?) vs. 11.n to 11.[n+1] ? Why was it called 11.1 instead of 10.4? The new Metadata Manager (U2 MDM) was introduced in 11.1.11, a minor point release. To my way of thinking, that would have triggered 11.2. And the existing new 11.2 would have been called 12.1. I thought the minor point releases were generally for bug fixess, not new functionality. Maybe you could clarify the naming
Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to.
As an FYI, I'm sitting in a meeting now were we are pulling a check-in to use a re-entrant version of the function for our latest build to fix this issue. You should expect a fix in 11.2.4 unless something goes wrong. Regards, Dan -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of John Hester Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:59 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. We migrated from UV 10.2.7 on RedHat 5.1 x86 to 11.1.13 on RedHat 6.4 x64 last November. I've since run into a bug that can reveal itself when tty processes are terminated. It could be unique to linux, but you may want to watch for it. The symptoms are that terminated UV tty processes disappear from LISTU and PORT.STATUS, but continue to exist in the process table and consume a UV per-seat license. I discovered the issue when we ran out of licenses after a couple of months of uptime and I initially couldn't figure out where they went. Running the ps command at the OS level revealed their existence. I'm guessing the issue occurs on maybe 1 out of 200 or 300 tty sessions. The root cause of the issue is the localtime() function being called from the signal handler. The localtime() function is not POSIX async-signal-safe, which means it can't be safely called from there. The function acquires a lock which may already be held by the process that was interrupted by the signal if it too was in localtime(). When this happens, a deadlock is the result and the process is in limbo forever. I was able to easily work around the issue by having cron run a script after hours every day to clean up any hung UV processes and recover the licenses. I opened a ticket with Rocket, and they're planning to include a fix for the issue in 11.2.4. I'm happy to provide my workaround script to anyone who runs into this on a linux or unix box. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how one would craft a workaround on Windows. -John -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 12:34 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. Reporting back on a question I asked a few months ago. We finally upgraded from uv10.2.10 to uv11.1.15 mid-February. Delays were for internal business reasons having nothing to do with UV or the upgrade project itself. Platform is Windows 2003, which will be upgraded later this year. I'm pushing for Linux but not holding my breath. Primary goal was fear of falling off the back end of maintenance. I would have liked 11.2, but it is too new. There is no pressing business need to be an early adapter. Stability overrides. Because several years ago many here on both business IT sides suffered a UV upgrade that caused the worst disaster I've ever seen a production system take. We restored from backup, losing 2 days of production data. That is the only problem I have ever seen with any UV upgrade. But I performed the one that went bad so I, personally, can't afford a 2nd with this same audience. So reluctance, nay, fear was high; regression testing, extensive; time between upgrades, long. (I won't get 11.2 for years unless we migrate to Linux.) Since every point release potentially introduces new bugs as well as fixes, I hesitated going to the latest 11.1.x, and toyed with going to a lesser one that more people are running on, pain-free. In the end we opted for the newest at that time, 11.1.13. If we ever have an issue, Rocket would probably put the fix in the next release we'd have to install the cummulative changes, anyway. So we might as well test for as much as possible up front. Most regression testing was on 11.1.13. By the time we were ready to install, 11.1.15 was available. There did not appear to be much that affected us in -.14 -.15, so I installed -.15 on the test system. Then mid-February I moved production from 10.2.10 to 11.1.15. Due to prior disaster, rollback-readiness to return to 10.2.10 was important. I exercised that a couple times on dev. Issues, comments: No issues during regression testing. The (default) uvhome is now c:\u2\uv instead of c:\ibm\uv. I chose to do a new install instead of upgrade. Permissions when installing 11.1.15 on production were tighter than when I installed 11.1.13 on dev. I don't know why. I like tight permissions, so I left them it's ok. Had to be careful to allow update permissionw wher I created the new uv\errlog. MAKE.MAP.FILE had errors on both dev prod after 11.1.15 install. I re-catalogued a couple subroutines it cared about and it seems to be ok. It wasn't a permissions problem. Gracious thanks to those on this list who offered advice, Chuck Stevenson On 9/25/2013 12:27 AM, Charles Stevenson wrote: We're
Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to.
is this unix-, linux-specific or windows, too? Fix in 11.2.4, but in 11.1.16 too? That's the usual practice, isn't it? On 2/28/2014 6:50 PM, Daniel McGrath wrote: As an FYI, I'm sitting in a meeting now were we are pulling a check-in to use a re-entrant version of the function for our latest build to fix this issue. You should expect a fix in 11.2.4 unless something goes wrong. Regards, Dan -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of John Hester Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:59 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. We migrated from UV 10.2.7 on RedHat 5.1 x86 to 11.1.13 on RedHat 6.4 x64 last November. I've since run into a bug that can reveal itself when tty processes are terminated. It could be unique to linux, but you may want to watch for it. The symptoms are that terminated UV tty processes disappear from LISTU and PORT.STATUS, but continue to exist in the process table and consume a UV per-seat license. I discovered the issue when we ran out of licenses after a couple of months of uptime and I initially couldn't figure out where they went. Running the ps command at the OS level revealed their existence. I'm guessing the issue occurs on maybe 1 out of 200 or 300 tty sessions. The root cause of the issue is the localtime() function being called from the signal handler. The localtime() function is not POSIX async-signal-safe, which means it can't be safely called from there. The function acquires a lock which may already be held by the process that was interrupted by the signal if it too was in localtime(). When this happens, a deadlock is the result and the process is in limbo forever. I was able to easily work around the issue by having cron run a script after hours every day to clean up any hung UV processes and recover the licenses. I opened a ticket with Rocket, and they're planning to include a fix for the issue in 11.2.4. I'm happy to provide my workaround script to anyone who runs into this on a linux or unix box. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how one would craft a workaround on Windows. -John -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 12:34 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. Reporting back on a question I asked a few months ago. We finally upgraded from uv10.2.10 to uv11.1.15 mid-February. Delays were for internal business reasons having nothing to do with UV or the upgrade project itself. Platform is Windows 2003, which will be upgraded later this year. I'm pushing for Linux but not holding my breath. Primary goal was fear of falling off the back end of maintenance. I would have liked 11.2, but it is too new. There is no pressing business need to be an early adapter. Stability overrides. Because several years ago many here on both business IT sides suffered a UV upgrade that caused the worst disaster I've ever seen a production system take. We restored from backup, losing 2 days of production data. That is the only problem I have ever seen with any UV upgrade. But I performed the one that went bad so I, personally, can't afford a 2nd with this same audience. So reluctance, nay, fear was high; regression testing, extensive; time between upgrades, long. (I won't get 11.2 for years unless we migrate to Linux.) Since every point release potentially introduces new bugs as well as fixes, I hesitated going to the latest 11.1.x, and toyed with going to a lesser one that more people are running on, pain-free. In the end we opted for the newest at that time, 11.1.13. If we ever have an issue, Rocket would probably put the fix in the next release we'd have to install the cummulative changes, anyway. So we might as well test for as much as possible up front. Most regression testing was on 11.1.13. By the time we were ready to install, 11.1.15 was available. There did not appear to be much that affected us in -.14 -.15, so I installed -.15 on the test system. Then mid-February I moved production from 10.2.10 to 11.1.15. Due to prior disaster, rollback-readiness to return to 10.2.10 was important. I exercised that a couple times on dev. Issues, comments: No issues during regression testing. The (default) uvhome is now c:\u2\uv instead of c:\ibm\uv. I chose to do a new install instead of upgrade. Permissions when installing 11.1.15 on production were tighter than when I installed 11.1.13 on dev. I don't know why. I like tight permissions, so I left them it's ok. Had to be careful to allow update permissionw wher I created the new uv\errlog. MAKE.MAP.FILE had errors on both dev prod after 11.1.15 install. I re-catalogued a couple subroutines it cared about and it seems to be ok. It wasn't
Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to.
Hi Charles, It does not affect Windows. At this point, we are not *planning* any further 11.1.x releases so we can focus on the 11.2.x and .NEXT releases of UniVerse and moving the technology forward. I also misspoke on 11.2.4 as it was a mistake in our issue system. It is actually 11.2.3. Regards, Dan -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 9:31 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. is this unix-, linux-specific or windows, too? Fix in 11.2.4, but in 11.1.16 too? That's the usual practice, isn't it? On 2/28/2014 6:50 PM, Daniel McGrath wrote: As an FYI, I'm sitting in a meeting now were we are pulling a check-in to use a re-entrant version of the function for our latest build to fix this issue. You should expect a fix in 11.2.4 unless something goes wrong. Regards, Dan -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of John Hester Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:59 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. We migrated from UV 10.2.7 on RedHat 5.1 x86 to 11.1.13 on RedHat 6.4 x64 last November. I've since run into a bug that can reveal itself when tty processes are terminated. It could be unique to linux, but you may want to watch for it. The symptoms are that terminated UV tty processes disappear from LISTU and PORT.STATUS, but continue to exist in the process table and consume a UV per-seat license. I discovered the issue when we ran out of licenses after a couple of months of uptime and I initially couldn't figure out where they went. Running the ps command at the OS level revealed their existence. I'm guessing the issue occurs on maybe 1 out of 200 or 300 tty sessions. The root cause of the issue is the localtime() function being called from the signal handler. The localtime() function is not POSIX async-signal-safe, which means it can't be safely called from there. The function acquires a lock which may already be held by the process that was interrupted by the signal if it too was in localtime(). When this happens, a deadlock is the result and the process is in limbo forever. I was able to easily work around the issue by having cron run a script after hours every day to clean up any hung UV processes and recover the licenses. I opened a ticket with Rocket, and they're planning to include a fix for the issue in 11.2.4. I'm happy to provide my workaround script to anyone who runs into this on a linux or unix box. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how one would craft a workaround on Windows. -John -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 12:34 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. Reporting back on a question I asked a few months ago. We finally upgraded from uv10.2.10 to uv11.1.15 mid-February. Delays were for internal business reasons having nothing to do with UV or the upgrade project itself. Platform is Windows 2003, which will be upgraded later this year. I'm pushing for Linux but not holding my breath. Primary goal was fear of falling off the back end of maintenance. I would have liked 11.2, but it is too new. There is no pressing business need to be an early adapter. Stability overrides. Because several years ago many here on both business IT sides suffered a UV upgrade that caused the worst disaster I've ever seen a production system take. We restored from backup, losing 2 days of production data. That is the only problem I have ever seen with any UV upgrade. But I performed the one that went bad so I, personally, can't afford a 2nd with this same audience. So reluctance, nay, fear was high; regression testing, extensive; time between upgrades, long. (I won't get 11.2 for years unless we migrate to Linux.) Since every point release potentially introduces new bugs as well as fixes, I hesitated going to the latest 11.1.x, and toyed with going to a lesser one that more people are running on, pain-free. In the end we opted for the newest at that time, 11.1.13. If we ever have an issue, Rocket would probably put the fix in the next release we'd have to install the cummulative changes, anyway. So we might as well test for as much as possible up front. Most regression testing was on 11.1.13. By the time we were ready to install, 11.1.15 was available. There did not appear to be much that affected us in -.14 -.15, so I installed -.15 on the test system. Then mid-February I moved production from 10.2.10 to 11.1.15. Due to prior disaster, rollback-readiness
Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to.
Reporting back on a question I asked a few months ago. We finally upgraded from uv10.2.10 to uv11.1.15 mid-February. Delays were for internal business reasons having nothing to do with UV or the upgrade project itself. Platform is Windows 2003, which will be upgraded later this year. I'm pushing for Linux but not holding my breath. Primary goal was fear of falling off the back end of maintenance. I would have liked 11.2, but it is too new. There is no pressing business need to be an early adapter. Stability overrides. Because several years ago many here on both business IT sides suffered a UV upgrade that caused the worst disaster I've ever seen a production system take. We restored from backup, losing 2 days of production data. That is the only problem I have ever seen with any UV upgrade. But I performed the one that went bad so I, personally, can't afford a 2nd with this same audience. So reluctance, nay, fear was high; regression testing, extensive; time between upgrades, long. (I won't get 11.2 for years unless we migrate to Linux.) Since every point release potentially introduces new bugs as well as fixes, I hesitated going to the latest 11.1.x, and toyed with going to a lesser one that more people are running on, pain-free. In the end we opted for the newest at that time, 11.1.13. If we ever have an issue, Rocket would probably put the fix in the next release we'd have to install the cummulative changes, anyway. So we might as well test for as much as possible up front. Most regression testing was on 11.1.13. By the time we were ready to install, 11.1.15 was available. There did not appear to be much that affected us in -.14 -.15, so I installed -.15 on the test system. Then mid-February I moved production from 10.2.10 to 11.1.15. Due to prior disaster, rollback-readiness to return to 10.2.10 was important. I exercised that a couple times on dev. Issues, comments: No issues during regression testing. The (default) uvhome is now c:\u2\uv instead of c:\ibm\uv. I chose to do a new install instead of upgrade. Permissions when installing 11.1.15 on production were tighter than when I installed 11.1.13 on dev. I don't know why. I like tight permissions, so I left them it's ok. Had to be careful to allow update permissionw wher I created the new uv\errlog. MAKE.MAP.FILE had errors on both dev prod after 11.1.15 install. I re-catalogued a couple subroutines it cared about and it seems to be ok. It wasn't a permissions problem. Gracious thanks to those on this list who offered advice, Chuck Stevenson On 9/25/2013 12:27 AM, Charles Stevenson wrote: We're finally going to upgrade from 10.2.10 to 11.1.[something]. But which point release? We're on Win2003. (Linux next year. Baby steps.) . . . ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to.
We migrated from UV 10.2.7 on RedHat 5.1 x86 to 11.1.13 on RedHat 6.4 x64 last November. I've since run into a bug that can reveal itself when tty processes are terminated. It could be unique to linux, but you may want to watch for it. The symptoms are that terminated UV tty processes disappear from LISTU and PORT.STATUS, but continue to exist in the process table and consume a UV per-seat license. I discovered the issue when we ran out of licenses after a couple of months of uptime and I initially couldn't figure out where they went. Running the ps command at the OS level revealed their existence. I'm guessing the issue occurs on maybe 1 out of 200 or 300 tty sessions. The root cause of the issue is the localtime() function being called from the signal handler. The localtime() function is not POSIX async-signal-safe, which means it can't be safely called from there. The function acquires a lock which may already be held by the process that was interrupted by the signal if it too was in localtime(). When this happens, a deadlock is the result and the process is in limbo forever. I was able to easily work around the issue by having cron run a script after hours every day to clean up any hung UV processes and recover the licenses. I opened a ticket with Rocket, and they're planning to include a fix for the issue in 11.2.4. I'm happy to provide my workaround script to anyone who runs into this on a linux or unix box. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how one would craft a workaround on Windows. -John -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 12:34 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. Reporting back on a question I asked a few months ago. We finally upgraded from uv10.2.10 to uv11.1.15 mid-February. Delays were for internal business reasons having nothing to do with UV or the upgrade project itself. Platform is Windows 2003, which will be upgraded later this year. I'm pushing for Linux but not holding my breath. Primary goal was fear of falling off the back end of maintenance. I would have liked 11.2, but it is too new. There is no pressing business need to be an early adapter. Stability overrides. Because several years ago many here on both business IT sides suffered a UV upgrade that caused the worst disaster I've ever seen a production system take. We restored from backup, losing 2 days of production data. That is the only problem I have ever seen with any UV upgrade. But I performed the one that went bad so I, personally, can't afford a 2nd with this same audience. So reluctance, nay, fear was high; regression testing, extensive; time between upgrades, long. (I won't get 11.2 for years unless we migrate to Linux.) Since every point release potentially introduces new bugs as well as fixes, I hesitated going to the latest 11.1.x, and toyed with going to a lesser one that more people are running on, pain-free. In the end we opted for the newest at that time, 11.1.13. If we ever have an issue, Rocket would probably put the fix in the next release we'd have to install the cummulative changes, anyway. So we might as well test for as much as possible up front. Most regression testing was on 11.1.13. By the time we were ready to install, 11.1.15 was available. There did not appear to be much that affected us in -.14 -.15, so I installed -.15 on the test system. Then mid-February I moved production from 10.2.10 to 11.1.15. Due to prior disaster, rollback-readiness to return to 10.2.10 was important. I exercised that a couple times on dev. Issues, comments: No issues during regression testing. The (default) uvhome is now c:\u2\uv instead of c:\ibm\uv. I chose to do a new install instead of upgrade. Permissions when installing 11.1.15 on production were tighter than when I installed 11.1.13 on dev. I don't know why. I like tight permissions, so I left them it's ok. Had to be careful to allow update permissionw wher I created the new uv\errlog. MAKE.MAP.FILE had errors on both dev prod after 11.1.15 install. I re-catalogued a couple subroutines it cared about and it seems to be ok. It wasn't a permissions problem. Gracious thanks to those on this list who offered advice, Chuck Stevenson On 9/25/2013 12:27 AM, Charles Stevenson wrote: We're finally going to upgrade from 10.2.10 to 11.1.[something]. But which point release? We're on Win2003. (Linux next year. Baby steps.) . . . ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to.
We are on Universe 11.1.9 on top of Win7 Professional Have been for about a year. -Original Message- From: mbeggs [via U2 (UniVerse UniData)] ml-node+s1073795n41968...@n5.nabble.com To: Will Johnson wjhon...@aol.com Sent: Wed, Oct 9, 2013 10:27 am Subject: Re: Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. Were getting ready to upgrade to 11.1.11 from 10.3 release. Were using Win 7. On some of the earlier versions found there were issues with locks. I did test 11.1.11 with a test virtual server, and everything did run successfully. If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below: http://u2-universe-unidata.1073795.n5.nabble.com/Recommended-11-1-point-release-to-upgrade-to-tp41866p41968.html To start a new topic under U2 - Users, email ml-node+s1073795n3...@n5.nabble.com To unsubscribe from U2 (UniVerse UniData), click here. NAML -- View this message in context: http://u2-universe-unidata.1073795.n5.nabble.com/Recommended-11-1-point-release-to-upgrade-to-tp41866p42009.html Sent from the U2 - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to.
Ryan Good catch. Yes, as more of the UniData subsystem gets ported to UniVerse, those sites will need to become more familiar with the dark art of tuning these. It's not forgiving when you hit the limits and, frankly, most of the documentation for this reads like machine speak. One of the nice things about UniVerse is that it generally behaves even if badly tuned, and can dynamically adapt to wildly changing workloads or huge differences in resource needs between different processes - it just won't run optimally rather than falling over in a heap (unless you fill up your lock table that is grin). So whilst we reap the benefits of better replication etc. the flipside is getting used to 'No More LCT' style messages. Brian -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Ladd, Ryan Sent: 25 September 2013 19:01 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. Chuck, Two other new parameters that may require changing are SHM_GNTBLS and SHM_GNPAGES. The What you need to know for Eleven-One document mentions these, but in the segment that called Shared Memory Parameters that should not require changing. The key word in that statement is should. When we upgraded on AIX to 11.1.4 from 10.3.9 the defaults were used and we ran out of GCT entries fairly early in the day. I would also say that if you use dynamic files with i-type indices as well as triggers, pay close attention to the patches. You may need to modify your TXMEM parameter to avoid write errors for larger records. I remember change to the FMT statement. I believe the fix was the addition of the FMT_TEXTMARK configurable. We were lucky with that one and noticed the issue before upgrading our production environment. Ryan -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Rick Nuckolls Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 6:16 PM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. Chuck, I agree that they took a simple (but fine) route on the local scoping. What is funny is that the interpretation of it seems to be that it allows the overriding of the production version of subroutines rather than simply creation of a safe version of gosub. It should work for both; I just never pictured it that way. Be sure to read the install notes on 11, in particular, the NUSERS config item is new important. Fixtool finally seems to work well. I know that a lot of work has gone into that over the previous couple of years. Rick -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:53 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. Thanks, Rick. They're finally getting in your desired variable scoping into 11.2, too. From what I read, I like how they did it. My prejudice against being an early adopter of major releases kicks in makes me not want 11.2.0. 11.2.4 maybe. Also, if I wait until November, my window closes. The vast majority of the issues listed in the 11.1 release notes have to do with stuff we don't use at all (DR, DARE, MQ, etc), or use so minimally that complete regression testing is easy (XML, callHTTP, etc.) There were several issues having to do with indexing. I think if I validate the indexes after regression tests, that should suffice. Issues that involve locking are trickier. It will require load testing and lock contention. I am not looking forward to that. The only time in my whole career that I recall having any problem with backward compatibility after a UV upgrade is also the only time I've seen a day's worth of work for an entire company abandoned and the previous night's backups restored. There was an undocumented change to FMT was made that ended up truncating out data, if I recall. It's in the U2-list archives. Some of the same people who suffered through that are with me now. cds On 9/25/2013 12:53 AM, Rick Nuckolls wrote: Chuck, We currently have one machine running 11.1.12 with no real problems. 11.1.13 is basically a one, only-on-severe-load, bug fix, and even then, unlikely. There is at least one thing that I am expecting in 11.2 that is worth waiting for, assuming it shows up. I did not see it in the public beta. I think that 11.2 is supposed to be out around Nov 1. -Rick -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:28 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. We're finally going to upgrade from 10.2.10 to 11.1.[something]. But which point release? We're on Win2003. (Linux next year. Baby steps.) Release
Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to.
Hmm, That approach is understandable in offering a backwardly compatible solution but I wish they had been a bit braver with it.. If they had looked at what OpenQM did with creating a more class-oriented structure in their version of basic, which makes for better surfacing of methods (especially with my unit testing hat on), that would potentially have offered a lot more options. I'm guessing it's the same low-impact mindset that stopped them from doing UDO's as first class citizens of the language, instead hiding them behind an ugly function library that obscures the structure (which is surely the whole point of JSON style objects?) Brian -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Rick Nuckolls Sent: 25 September 2013 00:16 To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. Chuck, I agree that they took a simple (but fine) route on the local scoping. What is funny is that the interpretation of it seems to be that it allows the overriding of the production version of subroutines rather than simply creation of a safe version of gosub. It should work for both; I just never pictured it that way. Be sure to read the install notes on 11, in particular, the NUSERS config item is new important. Fixtool finally seems to work well. I know that a lot of work has gone into that over the previous couple of years. Rick -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:53 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. Thanks, Rick. They're finally getting in your desired variable scoping into 11.2, too. From what I read, I like how they did it. My prejudice against being an early adopter of major releases kicks in makes me not want 11.2.0. 11.2.4 maybe. Also, if I wait until November, my window closes. The vast majority of the issues listed in the 11.1 release notes have to do with stuff we don't use at all (DR, DARE, MQ, etc), or use so minimally that complete regression testing is easy (XML, callHTTP, etc.) There were several issues having to do with indexing. I think if I validate the indexes after regression tests, that should suffice. Issues that involve locking are trickier. It will require load testing and lock contention. I am not looking forward to that. The only time in my whole career that I recall having any problem with backward compatibility after a UV upgrade is also the only time I've seen a day's worth of work for an entire company abandoned and the previous night's backups restored. There was an undocumented change to FMT was made that ended up truncating out data, if I recall. It's in the U2-list archives. Some of the same people who suffered through that are with me now. cds On 9/25/2013 12:53 AM, Rick Nuckolls wrote: Chuck, We currently have one machine running 11.1.12 with no real problems. 11.1.13 is basically a one, only-on-severe-load, bug fix, and even then, unlikely. There is at least one thing that I am expecting in 11.2 that is worth waiting for, assuming it shows up. I did not see it in the public beta. I think that 11.2 is supposed to be out around Nov 1. -Rick -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:28 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. We're finally going to upgrade from 10.2.10 to 11.1.[something]. But which point release? We're on Win2003. (Linux next year. Baby steps.) ReleaseDate Issues 11.1.13 Sept 2013 3 brand new. 11.1.12 June 201338 rescinded 11.1.11 Mar 201330 Metadata Manager introduced. 11.1.10 Dec 2012 66 11.1.9 May2012 75 11.1.8 ? 2 11.1.7Dec 2011 3 11.1.6? 4 11.1.5Nov 2011 42 11.1.4Aug 2011 17 11.1.3Jun 2011 17 11.1.2May 2011 29 11.1.1Feb 2011 45 11.1.0? 23 I generally tend to not be an early adopter when the major release first comes out unless it has a new functionality that I have a strong business need for. The later point releases tend to be bug fixes, so I am more prone to get them sooner rather than wait. In this case though, we have new functionality, Metadata Manager, introduced at 11.1.11. Are many users on 11.1.11? Happy? If i understand correctly, 11.1.12 was pulled off the market because of a bug that was fixed in 11.1.13, which just came out. So not much experience in the wild with these 2. Which one did / would you choose to upgrade to 11.1
Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to.
Brian, I agree with you on all points. The local (same file) subroutine implementation in 11.2 is not quite as ambitious as I would like; but, it also did not go down any particularly verbose byway. Having the capability to easily replace some gosub structures with subroutines functions is huge, however, imho. (It would be nice if the DEFFUN was assumed for internal functions.) I think classes and instances are very desirable, but I can appreciate that it would probably provoke a major review of Uv's garbage collection mechanism, which would make it a difficult sale. Also, have pity for the support staff that would need to support the crowd of Basic programmers during the transition! -Rick -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Brian Leach Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 4:58 AM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. Hmm, That approach is understandable in offering a backwardly compatible solution but I wish they had been a bit braver with it.. If they had looked at what OpenQM did with creating a more class-oriented structure in their version of basic, which makes for better surfacing of methods (especially with my unit testing hat on), that would potentially have offered a lot more options. I'm guessing it's the same low-impact mindset that stopped them from doing UDO's as first class citizens of the language, instead hiding them behind an ugly function library that obscures the structure (which is surely the whole point of JSON style objects?) Brian -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Rick Nuckolls Sent: 25 September 2013 00:16 To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. Chuck, I agree that they took a simple (but fine) route on the local scoping. What is funny is that the interpretation of it seems to be that it allows the overriding of the production version of subroutines rather than simply creation of a safe version of gosub. It should work for both; I just never pictured it that way. Be sure to read the install notes on 11, in particular, the NUSERS config item is new important. Fixtool finally seems to work well. I know that a lot of work has gone into that over the previous couple of years. Rick -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:53 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. Thanks, Rick. They're finally getting in your desired variable scoping into 11.2, too. From what I read, I like how they did it. My prejudice against being an early adopter of major releases kicks in makes me not want 11.2.0. 11.2.4 maybe. Also, if I wait until November, my window closes. The vast majority of the issues listed in the 11.1 release notes have to do with stuff we don't use at all (DR, DARE, MQ, etc), or use so minimally that complete regression testing is easy (XML, callHTTP, etc.) There were several issues having to do with indexing. I think if I validate the indexes after regression tests, that should suffice. Issues that involve locking are trickier. It will require load testing and lock contention. I am not looking forward to that. The only time in my whole career that I recall having any problem with backward compatibility after a UV upgrade is also the only time I've seen a day's worth of work for an entire company abandoned and the previous night's backups restored. There was an undocumented change to FMT was made that ended up truncating out data, if I recall. It's in the U2-list archives. Some of the same people who suffered through that are with me now. cds On 9/25/2013 12:53 AM, Rick Nuckolls wrote: Chuck, We currently have one machine running 11.1.12 with no real problems. 11.1.13 is basically a one, only-on-severe-load, bug fix, and even then, unlikely. There is at least one thing that I am expecting in 11.2 that is worth waiting for, assuming it shows up. I did not see it in the public beta. I think that 11.2 is supposed to be out around Nov 1. -Rick -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:28 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. We're finally going to upgrade from 10.2.10 to 11.1.[something]. But which point release? We're on Win2003. (Linux next year. Baby steps.) ReleaseDate Issues 11.1.13 Sept 2013 3 brand new. 11.1.12 June 201338 rescinded 11.1.11 Mar 201330 Metadata Manager introduced. 11.1.10 Dec 2012
Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to.
Chuck, Two other new parameters that may require changing are SHM_GNTBLS and SHM_GNPAGES. The What you need to know for Eleven-One document mentions these, but in the segment that called Shared Memory Parameters that should not require changing. The key word in that statement is should. When we upgraded on AIX to 11.1.4 from 10.3.9 the defaults were used and we ran out of GCT entries fairly early in the day. I would also say that if you use dynamic files with i-type indices as well as triggers, pay close attention to the patches. You may need to modify your TXMEM parameter to avoid write errors for larger records. I remember change to the FMT statement. I believe the fix was the addition of the FMT_TEXTMARK configurable. We were lucky with that one and noticed the issue before upgrading our production environment. Ryan -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Rick Nuckolls Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 6:16 PM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. Chuck, I agree that they took a simple (but fine) route on the local scoping. What is funny is that the interpretation of it seems to be that it allows the overriding of the production version of subroutines rather than simply creation of a safe version of gosub. It should work for both; I just never pictured it that way. Be sure to read the install notes on 11, in particular, the NUSERS config item is new important. Fixtool finally seems to work well. I know that a lot of work has gone into that over the previous couple of years. Rick -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:53 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. Thanks, Rick. They're finally getting in your desired variable scoping into 11.2, too. From what I read, I like how they did it. My prejudice against being an early adopter of major releases kicks in makes me not want 11.2.0. 11.2.4 maybe. Also, if I wait until November, my window closes. The vast majority of the issues listed in the 11.1 release notes have to do with stuff we don't use at all (DR, DARE, MQ, etc), or use so minimally that complete regression testing is easy (XML, callHTTP, etc.) There were several issues having to do with indexing. I think if I validate the indexes after regression tests, that should suffice. Issues that involve locking are trickier. It will require load testing and lock contention. I am not looking forward to that. The only time in my whole career that I recall having any problem with backward compatibility after a UV upgrade is also the only time I've seen a day's worth of work for an entire company abandoned and the previous night's backups restored. There was an undocumented change to FMT was made that ended up truncating out data, if I recall. It's in the U2-list archives. Some of the same people who suffered through that are with me now. cds On 9/25/2013 12:53 AM, Rick Nuckolls wrote: Chuck, We currently have one machine running 11.1.12 with no real problems. 11.1.13 is basically a one, only-on-severe-load, bug fix, and even then, unlikely. There is at least one thing that I am expecting in 11.2 that is worth waiting for, assuming it shows up. I did not see it in the public beta. I think that 11.2 is supposed to be out around Nov 1. -Rick -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:28 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. We're finally going to upgrade from 10.2.10 to 11.1.[something]. But which point release? We're on Win2003. (Linux next year. Baby steps.) ReleaseDate Issues 11.1.13 Sept 2013 3 brand new. 11.1.12 June 201338 rescinded 11.1.11 Mar 201330 Metadata Manager introduced. 11.1.10 Dec 2012 66 11.1.9 May2012 75 11.1.8 ? 2 11.1.7Dec 2011 3 11.1.6? 4 11.1.5Nov 2011 42 11.1.4Aug 2011 17 11.1.3Jun 2011 17 11.1.2May 2011 29 11.1.1Feb 2011 45 11.1.0? 23 I generally tend to not be an early adopter when the major release first comes out unless it has a new functionality that I have a strong business need for. The later point releases tend to be bug fixes, so I am more prone to get them sooner rather than wait. In this case though, we have new functionality, Metadata Manager, introduced at 11.1.11. Are many users on 11.1.11? Happy? If i
Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to.
Remember GTAR? Back in olden days Camelot, I mean Prime, was kind enough to tell us what the outstanding issues were. Not just tell us what the issue was after it was fixed. Gosh, that would be nice. cds ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to.
Thank-you, Ryan. We don't use triggers. Mostly because it makes RAID difficult. And it used to be a serious performance hit I don't know how true that is today. I am looking forward to using the new @IDX.IOTYPE because we do have a couple pseudo-trigger index using an I-descriptor subroutine to update a file. There is an issue or 2 in the release notes about indexed subroutines that do updates. 11.1.0UNV-4025 Prior to this release, updates performed within a UniVerse BASIC subroutine called through an indexed I-type may have failed when the index update was being done within a transaction. For example, if the file containing the indexed I-type was updated within a BEGIN TRANSACTION/END TRANSACTION block in a UniVerse BASIC program, any updates done in the indexed subroutine could fail. I haven't seen that corruption. I don't know when it was introduced. They don't tell us that. cds On 9/25/2013 9:01 PM, Ladd, Ryan wrote: Chuck, Two other new parameters that may require changing are SHM_GNTBLS and SHM_GNPAGES. The What you need to know for Eleven-One document mentions these, but in the segment that called Shared Memory Parameters that should not require changing. The key word in that statement is should. When we upgraded on AIX to 11.1.4 from 10.3.9 the defaults were used and we ran out of GCT entries fairly early in the day. I would also say that if you use dynamic files with i-type indices as well as triggers, pay close attention to the patches. You may need to modify your TXMEM parameter to avoid write errors for larger records. I remember change to the FMT statement. I believe the fix was the addition of the FMT_TEXTMARK configurable. We were lucky with that one and noticed the issue before upgrading our production environment. Ryan -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Rick Nuckolls Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 6:16 PM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. Chuck, I agree that they took a simple (but fine) route on the local scoping. What is funny is that the interpretation of it seems to be that it allows the overriding of the production version of subroutines rather than simply creation of a safe version of gosub. It should work for both; I just never pictured it that way. Be sure to read the install notes on 11, in particular, the NUSERS config item is new important. Fixtool finally seems to work well. I know that a lot of work has gone into that over the previous couple of years. Rick -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:53 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. Thanks, Rick. They're finally getting in your desired variable scoping into 11.2, too. From what I read, I like how they did it. My prejudice against being an early adopter of major releases kicks in makes me not want 11.2.0. 11.2.4 maybe. Also, if I wait until November, my window closes. The vast majority of the issues listed in the 11.1 release notes have to do with stuff we don't use at all (DR, DARE, MQ, etc), or use so minimally that complete regression testing is easy (XML, callHTTP, etc.) There were several issues having to do with indexing. I think if I validate the indexes after regression tests, that should suffice. Issues that involve locking are trickier. It will require load testing and lock contention. I am not looking forward to that. The only time in my whole career that I recall having any problem with backward compatibility after a UV upgrade is also the only time I've seen a day's worth of work for an entire company abandoned and the previous night's backups restored. There was an undocumented change to FMT was made that ended up truncating out data, if I recall. It's in the U2-list archives. Some of the same people who suffered through that are with me now. cds On 9/25/2013 12:53 AM, Rick Nuckolls wrote: Chuck, We currently have one machine running 11.1.12 with no real problems. 11.1.13 is basically a one, only-on-severe-load, bug fix, and even then, unlikely. There is at least one thing that I am expecting in 11.2 that is worth waiting for, assuming it shows up. I did not see it in the public beta. I think that 11.2 is supposed to be out around Nov 1. -Rick -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:28 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. We're finally going to upgrade from 10.2.10 to 11.1.[something]. But which point release? We're on Win2003. (Linux next year. Baby steps.) Release
[U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to.
We're finally going to upgrade from 10.2.10 to 11.1.[something]. But which point release? We're on Win2003. (Linux next year. Baby steps.) ReleaseDate Issues 11.1.13 Sept 2013 3 brand new. 11.1.12 June 201338 rescinded 11.1.11 Mar 201330 Metadata Manager introduced. 11.1.10 Dec 2012 66 11.1.9 May2012 75 11.1.8 ? 2 11.1.7Dec 2011 3 11.1.6? 4 11.1.5Nov 2011 42 11.1.4Aug 2011 17 11.1.3Jun 2011 17 11.1.2May 2011 29 11.1.1Feb 2011 45 11.1.0? 23 I generally tend to not be an early adopter when the major release first comes out unless it has a new functionality that I have a strong business need for. The later point releases tend to be bug fixes, so I am more prone to get them sooner rather than wait. In this case though, we have new functionality, Metadata Manager, introduced at 11.1.11. Are many users on 11.1.11? Happy? If i understand correctly, 11.1.12 was pulled off the market because of a bug that was fixed in 11.1.13, which just came out. So not much experience in the wild with these 2. Which one did / would you choose to upgrade to 11.1? TIA Chuck Stevenson ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to.
We are on 11.1.9, have been for about a year, and I haven't noticed any issues at all. Of course we're not using any of the new fangled kids stuff. Just the old fart's package. -Original Message- From: Charles Stevenson-2 [via U2 (UniVerse UniData)] ml-node+s1073795n41866...@n5.nabble.com To: Will Johnson wjhon...@aol.com Sent: Tue, Sep 24, 2013 2:29 pm Subject: Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. We're finally going to upgrade from 10.2.10 to 11.1.[something]. But which point release? We're on Win2003. (Linux next year. Baby steps.) ReleaseDate Issues 11.1.13 Sept 2013 3 brand new. 11.1.12 June 201338 rescinded 11.1.11 Mar 201330 Metadata Manager introduced. 11.1.10 Dec 2012 66 11.1.9 May2012 75 11.1.8 ? 2 11.1.7Dec 2011 3 11.1.6? 4 11.1.5Nov 2011 42 11.1.4Aug 2011 17 11.1.3Jun 2011 17 11.1.2May 2011 29 11.1.1Feb 2011 45 11.1.0? 23 I generally tend to not be an early adopter when the major release first comes out unless it has a new functionality that I have a strong business need for. The later point releases tend to be bug fixes, so I am more prone to get them sooner rather than wait. In this case though, we have new functionality, Metadata Manager, introduced at 11.1.11. Are many users on 11.1.11? Happy? If i understand correctly, 11.1.12 was pulled off the market because of a bug that was fixed in 11.1.13, which just came out. So not much experience in the wild with these 2. Which one did / would you choose to upgrade to 11.1? TIA Chuck Stevenson ___ U2-Users mailing list [hidden email] http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below: http://u2-universe-unidata.1073795.n5.nabble.com/Recommended-11-1-point-release-to-upgrade-to-tp41866.html To start a new topic under U2 - Users, email ml-node+s1073795n3...@n5.nabble.com To unsubscribe from U2 (UniVerse UniData), click here. NAML -- View this message in context: http://u2-universe-unidata.1073795.n5.nabble.com/Recommended-11-1-point-release-to-upgrade-to-tp41866p41867.html Sent from the U2 - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to.
Chuck, We currently have one machine running 11.1.12 with no real problems. 11.1.13 is basically a one, only-on-severe-load, bug fix, and even then, unlikely. There is at least one thing that I am expecting in 11.2 that is worth waiting for, assuming it shows up. I did not see it in the public beta. I think that 11.2 is supposed to be out around Nov 1. -Rick -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:28 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. We're finally going to upgrade from 10.2.10 to 11.1.[something]. But which point release? We're on Win2003. (Linux next year. Baby steps.) ReleaseDate Issues 11.1.13 Sept 2013 3 brand new. 11.1.12 June 201338 rescinded 11.1.11 Mar 201330 Metadata Manager introduced. 11.1.10 Dec 2012 66 11.1.9 May2012 75 11.1.8 ? 2 11.1.7Dec 2011 3 11.1.6? 4 11.1.5Nov 2011 42 11.1.4Aug 2011 17 11.1.3Jun 2011 17 11.1.2May 2011 29 11.1.1Feb 2011 45 11.1.0? 23 I generally tend to not be an early adopter when the major release first comes out unless it has a new functionality that I have a strong business need for. The later point releases tend to be bug fixes, so I am more prone to get them sooner rather than wait. In this case though, we have new functionality, Metadata Manager, introduced at 11.1.11. Are many users on 11.1.11? Happy? If i understand correctly, 11.1.12 was pulled off the market because of a bug that was fixed in 11.1.13, which just came out. So not much experience in the wild with these 2. Which one did / would you choose to upgrade to 11.1? TIA Chuck Stevenson ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to.
Thanks, Rick. They're finally getting in your desired variable scoping into 11.2, too. From what I read, I like how they did it. My prejudice against being an early adopter of major releases kicks in makes me not want 11.2.0. 11.2.4 maybe. Also, if I wait until November, my window closes. The vast majority of the issues listed in the 11.1 release notes have to do with stuff we don't use at all (DR, DARE, MQ, etc), or use so minimally that complete regression testing is easy (XML, callHTTP, etc.) There were several issues having to do with indexing. I think if I validate the indexes after regression tests, that should suffice. Issues that involve locking are trickier. It will require load testing and lock contention. I am not looking forward to that. The only time in my whole career that I recall having any problem with backward compatibility after a UV upgrade is also the only time I've seen a day's worth of work for an entire company abandoned and the previous night's backups restored. There was an undocumented change to FMT was made that ended up truncating out data, if I recall. It's in the U2-list archives. Some of the same people who suffered through that are with me now. cds On 9/25/2013 12:53 AM, Rick Nuckolls wrote: Chuck, We currently have one machine running 11.1.12 with no real problems. 11.1.13 is basically a one, only-on-severe-load, bug fix, and even then, unlikely. There is at least one thing that I am expecting in 11.2 that is worth waiting for, assuming it shows up. I did not see it in the public beta. I think that 11.2 is supposed to be out around Nov 1. -Rick -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:28 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. We're finally going to upgrade from 10.2.10 to 11.1.[something]. But which point release? We're on Win2003. (Linux next year. Baby steps.) ReleaseDate Issues 11.1.13 Sept 2013 3 brand new. 11.1.12 June 201338 rescinded 11.1.11 Mar 201330 Metadata Manager introduced. 11.1.10 Dec 2012 66 11.1.9 May2012 75 11.1.8 ? 2 11.1.7Dec 2011 3 11.1.6? 4 11.1.5Nov 2011 42 11.1.4Aug 2011 17 11.1.3Jun 2011 17 11.1.2May 2011 29 11.1.1Feb 2011 45 11.1.0? 23 I generally tend to not be an early adopter when the major release first comes out unless it has a new functionality that I have a strong business need for. The later point releases tend to be bug fixes, so I am more prone to get them sooner rather than wait. In this case though, we have new functionality, Metadata Manager, introduced at 11.1.11. Are many users on 11.1.11? Happy? If i understand correctly, 11.1.12 was pulled off the market because of a bug that was fixed in 11.1.13, which just came out. So not much experience in the wild with these 2. Which one did / would you choose to upgrade to 11.1? TIA Chuck Stevenson ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to.
Chuck, I agree that they took a simple (but fine) route on the local scoping. What is funny is that the interpretation of it seems to be that it allows the overriding of the production version of subroutines rather than simply creation of a safe version of gosub. It should work for both; I just never pictured it that way. Be sure to read the install notes on 11, in particular, the NUSERS config item is new important. Fixtool finally seems to work well. I know that a lot of work has gone into that over the previous couple of years. Rick -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:53 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. Thanks, Rick. They're finally getting in your desired variable scoping into 11.2, too. From what I read, I like how they did it. My prejudice against being an early adopter of major releases kicks in makes me not want 11.2.0. 11.2.4 maybe. Also, if I wait until November, my window closes. The vast majority of the issues listed in the 11.1 release notes have to do with stuff we don't use at all (DR, DARE, MQ, etc), or use so minimally that complete regression testing is easy (XML, callHTTP, etc.) There were several issues having to do with indexing. I think if I validate the indexes after regression tests, that should suffice. Issues that involve locking are trickier. It will require load testing and lock contention. I am not looking forward to that. The only time in my whole career that I recall having any problem with backward compatibility after a UV upgrade is also the only time I've seen a day's worth of work for an entire company abandoned and the previous night's backups restored. There was an undocumented change to FMT was made that ended up truncating out data, if I recall. It's in the U2-list archives. Some of the same people who suffered through that are with me now. cds On 9/25/2013 12:53 AM, Rick Nuckolls wrote: Chuck, We currently have one machine running 11.1.12 with no real problems. 11.1.13 is basically a one, only-on-severe-load, bug fix, and even then, unlikely. There is at least one thing that I am expecting in 11.2 that is worth waiting for, assuming it shows up. I did not see it in the public beta. I think that 11.2 is supposed to be out around Nov 1. -Rick -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:28 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. We're finally going to upgrade from 10.2.10 to 11.1.[something]. But which point release? We're on Win2003. (Linux next year. Baby steps.) ReleaseDate Issues 11.1.13 Sept 2013 3 brand new. 11.1.12 June 201338 rescinded 11.1.11 Mar 201330 Metadata Manager introduced. 11.1.10 Dec 2012 66 11.1.9 May2012 75 11.1.8 ? 2 11.1.7Dec 2011 3 11.1.6? 4 11.1.5Nov 2011 42 11.1.4Aug 2011 17 11.1.3Jun 2011 17 11.1.2May 2011 29 11.1.1Feb 2011 45 11.1.0? 23 I generally tend to not be an early adopter when the major release first comes out unless it has a new functionality that I have a strong business need for. The later point releases tend to be bug fixes, so I am more prone to get them sooner rather than wait. In this case though, we have new functionality, Metadata Manager, introduced at 11.1.11. Are many users on 11.1.11? Happy? If i understand correctly, 11.1.12 was pulled off the market because of a bug that was fixed in 11.1.13, which just came out. So not much experience in the wild with these 2. Which one did / would you choose to upgrade to 11.1? TIA Chuck Stevenson ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to.
Hi Rick, What was that one thing? Speaking of the public beta, our Linux version is available now as well: http://blog.rocketsoftware.com/2013/09/universe-v11-2-public-beta-linux-windows/ Cheers, Dan -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Rick Nuckolls Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:54 PM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. Chuck, We currently have one machine running 11.1.12 with no real problems. 11.1.13 is basically a one, only-on-severe-load, bug fix, and even then, unlikely. There is at least one thing that I am expecting in 11.2 that is worth waiting for, assuming it shows up. I did not see it in the public beta. I think that 11.2 is supposed to be out around Nov 1. -Rick -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:28 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: [U2] Recommended 11.1.point release to upgrade to. We're finally going to upgrade from 10.2.10 to 11.1.[something]. But which point release? We're on Win2003. (Linux next year. Baby steps.) ReleaseDate Issues 11.1.13 Sept 2013 3 brand new. 11.1.12 June 201338 rescinded 11.1.11 Mar 201330 Metadata Manager introduced. 11.1.10 Dec 2012 66 11.1.9 May2012 75 11.1.8 ? 2 11.1.7Dec 2011 3 11.1.6? 4 11.1.5Nov 2011 42 11.1.4Aug 2011 17 11.1.3Jun 2011 17 11.1.2May 2011 29 11.1.1Feb 2011 45 11.1.0? 23 I generally tend to not be an early adopter when the major release first comes out unless it has a new functionality that I have a strong business need for. The later point releases tend to be bug fixes, so I am more prone to get them sooner rather than wait. In this case though, we have new functionality, Metadata Manager, introduced at 11.1.11. Are many users on 11.1.11? Happy? If i understand correctly, 11.1.12 was pulled off the market because of a bug that was fixed in 11.1.13, which just came out. So not much experience in the wild with these 2. Which one did / would you choose to upgrade to 11.1? TIA Chuck Stevenson ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
