Hi,
I am applying few toleration fixes for a hardware but I a receiving the
below error message.
CAUSER SYSMOD SUMMARY REPORT FOR APPLY CHECK PROCESSING
CAUSER FMID MESSAGE ID PAGE ERROR DESCRIPTION AND POSSIBLE CAUSES
UA90976 HBB7790 GIM35901I 2 ERROR HOLD AA49159 WAS NOT
M-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Jake Anderson
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 5:02 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: PTF error clarification
>
> Hi,
>
> I am applying few toleration fixes for a hardware but I a receiving the below
> error message.
>
>
: PTF error clarification
When an APAR has HOLD ERROR, you should not do anything until IBM resolves the
error. So SMP/E is doing what it is supposed to do. Prevent you from installing
fixes that could harm your system.
With these types of issues I raise an SR to IBM and ask when this error will be
F was worse than the bug being fixed by the original PTF.
Rex
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Jake Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 6:02 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: PTF error clarification
Hi
Research this apar:
ERROR HOLD AA49159 WAS NOT RESOLVED
Either order/install the additional maintenance required *OR*
*WITH GREAT CARE AND EXTREME DILIGENCE*, determine if the exposure in this
AA49159 will affect you installation.
If *YES* DO NOT bypass the error hold.
If *NO*, the e
in...@gmail.com
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Staller, Allan
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 07:00 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: [Bulk] Re: PTF error clarification
>
&
In
,
on 12/22/2015
at 05:32 PM, Jake Anderson said:
>Does that mean, I have to receive the APAR
If there is a PTF that resolves the APAR, receive that. If not, and
there is an APAR fix, receive that. Either way, specify group extend.
But first check for PE.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
, December 22, 2015 11:48 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: PTF error clarification
In
,
on 12/22/2015
at 05:32 PM, Jake Anderson said:
>Does that mean, I have to receive the APAR
If there is a PTF that resolves the APAR, receive that. If not, and there is an
APAR fix, receive that. Eit
mber 22, 2015 10:00 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: [Bulk] Re: PTF error clarification
>
> Receive the HOLDDATA. Then SMP/E checks for PE. Do specify GROUPEXTEND
> (or GEXT).
>
> Bob Longabaugh
> CA Technologies
> Storage Management QA
>
> -O
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 14:59:52 -0800, Skip Robinson wrote:
>
>This is a hot button of mine: going to extraordinary lengths to second guess
>SMPE. Like Santa Claus, SMPE knows who's been naughty and who's been nice.
>Goodies and lumps of coal will be distributed accordingly. GROUPEXTEND is
>*always* i
in
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 04:39 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: [Bulk] Re: PTF error clarification
>
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 14:59:52 -0800, Skip Robinson wrote:
> >
> >This is a hot button of mine: going to extraordinary lengths to second
> >gues
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Skip Robinson
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 3:00 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: PTF error clarification
>
> This is a hot
inframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
>> On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 04:39 PM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: [Bulk] Re: PTF error clarification
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 14:59:52 -0800, Skip Robins
... Hasn't there been a recent enhancement so BYPASS can get RC=0?
"Recent" is relative, but yes there was a change, in SMP/E V3.5, way
back in z/OS V1.10, 2008. Doesn't really affect the current subject,
but BYPASSed HOLDs will get RC=0 instead of RC=4.
http://www-01.ibm.com/support/knowled
Is a return code of 4 more appropriate for PTFs not applied because of
error hold?
This is an interesting idea, which I'm curious to hear opinions on. If
doing a mass APPLY (not using the SELECT operand), and PTFs are stopped
because of a PE (ERROR HOLD), either directly or in a requisite cha
In , on 12/22/2015
at 10:55 PM, Clark Morris said:
>Are there holds that should be bypassed
Yes.
>such as Action after noting the action
And doc hold after reading the documentation
There are some that I automatically bypass, e.g., CLPA: I don't apply
servie to a live system and these day
to fall in that category.
Lizette
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Kurt Quackenbush
> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 6:51 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: PTF error clarifi
PE Error RC8
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Kurt Quackenbush
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 7:50 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: PTF error clarification
> Is a return code of 4 more appropriate for PTFs
On 23 Dec 2015 05:50:44 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>> Is a return code of 4 more appropriate for PTFs not applied because of
>> error hold?
>
>This is an interesting idea, which I'm curious to hear opinions on. If
>doing a mass APPLY (not using the SELECT operand), and PTFs are s
-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Kurt Quackenbush
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 8:51 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: PTF error clarification
> Is a return code of 4 more appropriate for PTFs not applied because of
>
To make everybody happy, make this a user controlled option, you decide
what causes RC=xx.
--- robert.richa...@opm.gov wrote:
From: "Richards, Robert B."
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: PTF error clarification
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:44:24 -
<<<
> Is a return code of 4 more appropriate for PTFs not applied because of
> error hold?
This is an interesting idea, which I'm curious to hear opinions on. If doing a
mass APPLY (not using the SELECT operand), and PTFs are stopped because of a PE
(ERROR HOLD), eithe
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Clark Morris wrote:
> On 23 Dec 2015 05:50:44 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>
>>This is an interesting idea, which I'm curious to hear opinions on. If
>>doing a mass APPLY (not using the SELECT operand), and PTFs are stopped
>>because of a PE (ERROR H
I guess I have a basic question - is a return code intended to indicate that
success of a process doing what it is supposed to do? Or the meaningfulness of
the results of the process to the person who makes uses of the results of the
process?
If the former - then should EVERY run of APPLY retur
On 12/23/2015 8:50 AM, Kurt Quackenbush wrote:
Is a return code of 4 more appropriate for PTFs not applied because of
error hold?
This is an interesting idea, which I'm curious to hear opinions on. If
doing a mass APPLY (not using the SELECT operand), and PTFs are stopped
because of a PE (ERRO
Of Chris Hoelscher
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 11:12 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] PTF error clarification
I guess I have a basic question - is a return code intended to indicate that
success of a process doing what it is supposed to do? Or the meaningfulness of
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:54:52 +, Jakubek, Jan > Is a return code of 4 more appropriate for PTFs not applied because of
>> error hold?
>
>This is an interesting idea, which I'm curious to hear opinions on. If doing
>a mass APPLY (not using the SELECT operand), and PTFs are stopped because of a
hold. :-)
Rex
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Chris Hoelscher
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 10:12 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: PTF error clarification
I guess I have a basic question - is a return c
In <567aa6b1.8050...@us.ibm.com>, on 12/23/2015
at 08:50 AM, Kurt Quackenbush said:
>This is an interesting idea, which I'm curious to hear opinions
>on. If doing a mass APPLY (not using the SELECT operand), and
>PTFs are stopped because of a PE (ERROR HOLD), either directly
>or in a req
er 23, 2015 09:27 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: [Bulk] Re: PTF error clarification
>
> Chris,
>
> I was having similar thoughts as you, although not to the extent of yours.
I tend
> to think along the first of your ideas about the purpose of the RC, that
> Is a return code of 4 more appropriate for PTFs not applied because of
> error hold?
This is an interesting idea, which I'm curious to hear opinions on. If doing a
mass APPLY (not using the SELECT operand), and PTFs are stopped because of a PE
(ERROR HOLD), either directly or in a requisite
In
<29b16432403d6c45a9bee5f0302d191779b9f...@vss-exchmb1.sfg.corp.LOCAL>,
on 12/23/2015
at 05:27 PM, "Pommier, Rex" said:
>Maybe in way of compromise, SMP/E should set a RC=6 instead of 8
>where maintenance is stopped due to an error hold. :-)
How does an error hold differ from a system hold
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
wrote:
> In
> <29b16432403d6c45a9bee5f0302d191779b9f...@vss-exchmb1.sfg.corp.LOCAL>,
> on 12/23/2015
>at 05:27 PM, "Pommier, Rex" said:
>
>>Maybe in way of compromise, SMP/E should set a RC=6 instead of 8
>>where maintenance is stopped
In
,
on 12/23/2015
at 04:52 PM, Mike Schwab said:
>On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
> wrote:
>> In
>> <29b16432403d6c45a9bee5f0302d191779b9f...@vss-exchmb1.sfg.corp.LOCAL>,
>> on 12/23/2015
>>at 05:27 PM, "Pommier, Rex" said:
>>
>>>Maybe in way of compromise, SMP/
At 08:50 -0500 on 12/23/2015, Kurt Quackenbush wrote about Re: PTF
error clarification:
Is a return code of 4 more appropriate for PTFs not applied because of
error hold?
This is an interesting idea, which I'm curious to hear opinions on.
If doing a mass APPLY (not using the SELECT op
. Rosenberg
> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 09:36 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: [Bulk] Re: PTF error clarification
>
> At 08:50 -0500 on 12/23/2015, Kurt Quackenbush wrote about Re: PTF error
> clarification:
>
> >>Is a return code of 4 more appropriate
ssage-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Robert A. Rosenberg
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 09:36 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [Bulk] Re: PTF error clarification
At 08:50 -0500 on 12/23/2015, Kurt Quackenbush wrote about Re: PTF error
cla
, December 24, 2015 9:18 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: PTF error clarification
Thank you all for your ideas and opinions. Just so we're all clear, I
currently have no plans to make this kind of change to SMP/E, but its an idea
I've had for a while and I thought it was worth
MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Richards, Robert B.
Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2015 9:33 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: PTF error clarification
Kurt,
My Christmas wish: An enhancement to easily identify SECINT PTFs through
reports
Merry Christmas and a very Happy N
, December 24, 2015 9:40 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: PTF error clarification
Yea, today you have to subscribe and be approved to access the SECINT data, and
then you have to manually download the SMPE assigns, and receive that. Once
that is done, you can then easily do apply&#
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 10:02:35 -0500, Richards, Robert B. wrote:
>You have an *IBM rep*?
>
>I also wish that the HOLDs file was in a format that could easily be imported
>into EXCEL so that I could use filtering criteria.
>
(Or LibreOffice for those not Excel-afflicted.)
Is it regular enough that
On 23 Dec 2015 15:52:13 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>In
>,
>on 12/23/2015
> at 04:52 PM, Mike Schwab said:
>
>>On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
>> wrote:
>>> In
>>> <29b16432403d6c45a9bee5f0302d191779b9f...@vss-exchmb1.sfg.corp.LOCAL>,
>>> on 12/23/2015
>
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 10:02:35 -0500, Richards, Robert B. wrote:
>You have an *IBM rep*?
>
>I also wish that the HOLDs file was in a format that could easily be imported
>into EXCEL so that I could use filtering criteria.
>
Heres a hack at converting HOLDDATA to CSV. (I left out the hard part:
pa
43 matches
Mail list logo
