Problem applying Service to v4r5m0...

Hi,

using OS/400 only as a Hobby I have a Problem applying Service to a
9401-150 running v4r5m0 :-(

I installed v4r5m0 freshly from Media (CD-ROM). Then I tried to apply
the Cumulative PTF-Package SF99450 following the Instructions given in
the CumPak. However, that failed. I also tried to first install the
Group HIPER SF99096 - which also failed (this did happen quite a while
ago; I think it was because there was a dependency upon SF99035 (back
then I also tried to apply the SF99035 which also failed) (unfortunately
I didn't find any Install-Doc in the SF99096).

Now, from the Docs I know how to track-down the Problem of a failure to
load a PTF; however, I have no Idea for the right Order of the Packages.

So, is there any Doc that gives a clear Order (i.e. "Install SFxyz
first, then Group HIPER, then SFabc, then Cumulative Service Pak")? Or
could someone please point me to the correct order? I started checking
all the Cover Letters of the PTFs but that was really annoying as there
were Dependencies which were superceded and also it was somewhat hard
due to the number of Dependencies...

Would be nice to get the fixes installed ;-)

Cheers and MTIA!
_ralf_

Ralf Folkerts wrote:[color=blue]
> Hi,
>
> using OS/400 only as a Hobby I have a Problem applying Service to a
> 9401-150 running v4r5m0 :-(
>
> I installed v4r5m0 freshly from Media (CD-ROM). Then I tried to apply
> the Cumulative PTF-Package SF99450 following the Instructions given in
> the CumPak. However, that failed. I also tried to first install the
> Group HIPER SF99096 - which also failed (this did happen quite a while
> ago; I think it was because there was a dependency upon SF99035 (back
> then I also tried to apply the SF99035 which also failed) (unfortunately
> I didn't find any Install-Doc in the SF99096).
>
> Now, from the Docs I know how to track-down the Problem of a failure to
> load a PTF; however, I have no Idea for the right Order of the Packages.
>
> So, is there any Doc that gives a clear Order (i.e. "Install SFxyz
> first, then Group HIPER, then SFabc, then Cumulative Service Pak")? Or
> could someone please point me to the correct order? I started checking
> all the Cover Letters of the PTFs but that was really annoying as there
> were Dependencies which were superceded and also it was somewhat hard
> due to the number of Dependencies...
>
> Would be nice to get the fixes installed ;-)
>
> Cheers and MTIA!
> _ralf_[/color]
After a new install of OS the CUME (SF99450) should go on first, then
the other Group PTFs such as the Hypers and DB. Prior to V5R3 it was
common practice to need to apply 1 or more pre-req PTFs BEFORE
installing a CUME package. YOU would need to know the specific CUME
level ( CYDDD450 ) C = CUME, Y = YEAR, DDD - Julian Day the package was
released and 450 = equals the release. If you are using Original PTF CDs
this number is on each of the CDs followed by '_01' etc. Once wwe have
that we can try and find the specific installation instructions for that
level.

Kirk Goins schrieb:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> [...]
>> So, is there any Doc that gives a clear Order (i.e. "Install SFxyz
>> first, then Group HIPER, then SFabc, then Cumulative Service Pak")? Or
>> could someone please point me to the correct order? I started checking
>> all the Cover Letters of the PTFs but that was really annoying as
>> there were Dependencies which were superceded and also it was somewhat
>> hard due to the number of Dependencies...
>> [...][/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> After a new install of OS the CUME (SF99450) should go on first, then
> the other Group PTFs such as the Hypers and DB. Prior to V5R3 it was
> common practice to need to apply 1 or more pre-req PTFs BEFORE
> installing a CUME package. YOU would need to know the specific CUME
> level ( CYDDD450 ) C = CUME, Y = YEAR, DDD - Julian Day the package was
> released and 450 = equals the release. If you are using Original PTF CDs
> this number is on each of the CDs followed by '_01' etc. Once wwe have
> that we can try and find the specific installation instructions for that
> level.[/color]

Hi Kirk,

thanks for the fast reply! I'll try the SF99450 (C2169450) now.
Fortunately there are some Instructions in that Package... My main
motivation was to make sure I'm not trying to install the "wrong"
Package first and then search for the reason of a failure for a long time...

However, would be nice if I could get back to this if I do not manage to
find the cause of the failure!

Cheers,
_ralf_

Ralf Folkerts wrote:[color=blue]
> Kirk Goins schrieb:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> [...]
>>> So, is there any Doc that gives a clear Order (i.e. "Install SFxyz
>>> first, then Group HIPER, then SFabc, then Cumulative Service Pak")?
>>> Or could someone please point me to the correct order? I started
>>> checking all the Cover Letters of the PTFs but that was really
>>> annoying as there were Dependencies which were superceded and also it
>>> was somewhat hard due to the number of Dependencies...
>>> [...][/color][/color]
>[color=green]
>> After a new install of OS the CUME (SF99450) should go on first, then
>> the other Group PTFs such as the Hypers and DB. Prior to V5R3 it was
>> common practice to need to apply 1 or more pre-req PTFs BEFORE
>> installing a CUME package. YOU would need to know the specific CUME
>> level ( CYDDD450 ) C = CUME, Y = YEAR, DDD - Julian Day the package
>> was released and 450 = equals the release. If you are using Original
>> PTF CDs this number is on each of the CDs followed by '_01' etc. Once
>> wwe have that we can try and find the specific installation
>> instructions for that level.[/color]
>
> Hi Kirk,
>
> thanks for the fast reply! I'll try the SF99450 (C2169450) now.
> Fortunately there are some Instructions in that Package... My main
> motivation was to make sure I'm not trying to install the "wrong"
> Package first and then search for the reason of a failure for a long
> time...
>
> However, would be nice if I could get back to this if I do not manage to
> find the cause of the failure!
>
> Cheers,
> _ralf_[/color]
A quick google of C2169450 gets a hit that mentions these 2 pre-req PTFs
SF65630 and MF27324 They shuold be in the instructions when you get
back to trying it again.

Kirk Goins schrieb:

[...][color=blue][color=green]
>> thanks for the fast reply! I'll try the SF99450 (C2169450) now.
>> Fortunately there are some Instructions in that Package... My main
>> motivation was to make sure I'm not trying to install the "wrong"
>> Package first and then search for the reason of a failure for a long
>> time...
>>
>> However, would be nice if I could get back to this if I do not manage
>> to find the cause of the failure!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> _ralf_[/color]
> A quick google of C2169450 gets a hit that mentions these 2 pre-req PTFs
> SF65630 and MF27324 They shuold be in the instructions when you get
> back to trying it again.
>[/color]

Hi Kirk,

thanks for the hint! Fortunately (for me) there are some Instructions
with the Cum-Pak which list these two.

Currently the System is applying the CumPak. There were two PTFs which
didn't Load (both with a CPF375B). These were 5769PW1/SF64201 and
5769SS1/SF65596. I'll try to re-apply these two once the System is up again.

One question re. the Procedure to find the PTF that causes the Problem.
I didn't find any clue to the PTF in both "go licpgm/#50" and dspjoblog.
The only clue I found was in the joblog on the CPF3773 Message where
the save-file is listed whose name is the LicPgm affected (i.e.
Q5769SS1 and Q5769PW1). I then loaded the PTF Cover Letter for the
Product and tried to lodptf each non-superceded PTF until the Error
occured. Then started the Load of the PTF-Package again, adding the
failed PTF to the Omit-List.

Is there a simpler way to find the affected PTF? With the
5769SS1/SF65596 I typed ~30 Pages of PTF until I found the "bad" one
which took really some time, so I'm looking for a message "about to load
SFnnnnn" / "SFnnnnn loaded" Pair which would show which one was the
cuplprit; I did find the "loaded" Messages but none re. "about to load"
or even "failure at SFnnnnn".

Thanks again for the hint re the SF65630 and MF27324 PTFs...

Cheers,
_ralf_

Ralf Folkerts schrieb:

[...][color=blue]
> Currently the System is applying the CumPak. There were two PTFs which
> didn't Load (both with a CPF375B). These were 5769PW1/SF64201 and
> 5769SS1/SF65596. I'll try to re-apply these two once the System is up
> again.[/color]
[...]

Hi Kirk,

just a short Update: After the PTFs were applied yesterday I tried to
Load the failing PTFs S5769PW1/SF64201 and 5769SS1/SF65596 from the
CumePak-CDs again yesterday, but they again failed.

So I just got these two from FixCentral, burned them onto CD - and they
loaded (and later applied) fine.

So, now it's time to Load the Group-HIPER-PTFs or at least try to load :-)

Cheers,
_ralf_

Ralf Folkerts schrieb:

[...][color=blue]
> So, now it's time to Load the Group-HIPER-PTFs or at least try to load :-)[/color]
[...]

Hi Kirk,

just an Update: The Group HIPER loaded and applied w/o any Problems!

Cheers,
_ralf_

Ralf Folkerts wrote:[color=blue]
> Ralf Folkerts schrieb:
>
> [...][color=green]
>> So, now it's time to Load the Group-HIPER-PTFs or at least try to load
>> :-)[/color]
> [...]
>
> Hi Kirk,
>
> just an Update: The Group HIPER loaded and applied w/o any Problems!
>
> Cheers,
> _ralf_[/color]

Sorry i didn't get back to you sooner.. You are now an official AS/400
admin :)

Kirk Goins schrieb:

[...][color=blue]
> Sorry i didn't get back to you sooner.. You are now an official AS/400
> admin :)[/color]

Hi Kirk,

thanks again for your help (w/o knowing which of the two has to be
applied first I surely would not have spent so much time trying to get
the Fixes into the System); what I'd really like to know is about the
"correct" way to find out which PTF caused the Problem. Is there are Log
that contains more in-depth Info than the Joblog and/or the go licpgm
#50? Typing ~32 Pages of PTF-Numbers (OK, *many* were superceded) seems
rather suboptimal to me. Are there better ways to track down the PTF
that causes the Load of a PT-Package to fail?

Cheers,
_ralf_

Ralf Folkerts wrote:[color=blue]
>
> <<SNIP>> What I'd really like to know is about the "correct" way to
> find out which PTF caused the Problem. Is there a Log that contains
> more in-depth Info than the Joblog and/or the go licpgm #50? Typing
> ~32 Pages of PTF-Numbers (OK, *many* were superceded) seems rather
> suboptimal to me. Are there better ways to track down the PTF that
> causes the Load of a PTF-Package to fail?[/color]

Like with any joblog, effectively starting at the bottom of the max
logging level [LOG(4 0 *SECLVL)] spooled joblog for the final error
condition, referring up\back for the prior escape and diagnostic
messages that led to the failure condition.

The GO LICPGM option-50 is really just a DSPLOG with specific MSGID()
list and PERIOD(()) specified. The messages and ranges on that command
to display QHST can be spooled with low level text; see the OUTPUT()
parameter, special value *PRTSECLVL.

Regards, Chuck