Miguel,
Steve cited the Summary which states: "- Your first-level system must be running z/VM 5.1.0 or higher."
I specifically searched the full Guide for "5.1". The step you refer to states: "o For a second-level installation your first-level system must be running z/VM Version 5".
Note the discrepancy, the Summary lists "5.1" while the Guide is more general (and upward compatible) with only "5". Doc error.
If I had time and enough interest, I'd submit an RFC for the Summary to match the "5" in the Guide. Then when 5.3 hits the streets there would be one less point of confusion for upgrading customers. Thanks for pointing out the vagaries of character searches. (Damned computers! Do what I want not what I ask!) :-)
BTW... so far not a single IBM problem to report (knock on wood - maybe Chuckie's head) with the z/VM 5.1 upgrade from VM/ESA 240. Great job IBM VM Development! Especially considering the long jump we made skipping over so many versions and releases!
Mike Walter
Hewitt Associates
The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's.
| "Miguel Diaz"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: "VM/ESA and z/VM Discussions" <[email protected]> 01/04/2006 02:55 PM
|
|
Mike,
Are you looking at Part 2 (System Image DVD Installation) in the Guide for Auto Install & Service?
Chapter 5, Step 1, sub step 4 lists the requirement, which is also on the summary sheet (the DVD version).
Regards,
Miguel Diaz
z/VM TCP/IP Development
VM/ESA and z/VM Discussions <[email protected]> wrote on 01/04/2006 03:41:13 PM:
> Dennis,
>
> You sure about that? I've peeked at the "z/VM Guide for Automated
> Installation and Service version 5 release 2" (GC24-6099-02) and there is
> no indication of that (but for new DVD support it sounds reasonable). One
> would expect such a requirement would be clearly defined, not implied.
>
> BTW, the full manual (always a lot more reliable than the double-sided
> Summary sheet) does not indicate that 5.1 is required. Steve, when in
> doubt refer to the full manual (helps to put you to sleep at night, too!)
> :-)
>
> Certainly though, a 64-bit first-level system is absolutely required.
> Maybe that was the implication made by the Summary?
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Mike Walter
> Hewitt Associates
> The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's.
The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.
