Problem applying Service to v4r5m0... - IBM AS400

This is a discussion on Problem applying Service to v4r5m0... - IBM AS400 ; 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Problem applying Service to v4r5m0...

  1. 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    were Dependencies which were superceded and also it was somewhat hard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_

  2. Re: Problem applying Service to v4r5m0...

    Ralf Folkerts wrote:
    > 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_

    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.

  3. Re: Problem applying Service to v4r5m0...

    Kirk Goins schrieb:

    >> [...]
    >> 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...
    >> [...]


    > 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.


    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_

  4. Re: Problem applying Service to v4r5m0...

    Ralf Folkerts wrote:
    > Kirk Goins schrieb:
    >
    >>> [...]
    >>> 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...
    >>> [...]

    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > 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_

    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.


  5. Re: Problem applying Service to v4r5m0...

    Kirk Goins schrieb:

    [...]
    >> 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_

    > 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.
    >


    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_

  6. Re: Problem applying Service to v4r5m0...

    Ralf Folkerts schrieb:

    [...]
    > 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.

    [...]

    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_

  7. Re: Problem applying Service to v4r5m0...

    Ralf Folkerts schrieb:

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

    [...]

    Hi Kirk,

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

    Cheers,
    _ralf_

  8. Re: Problem applying Service to v4r5m0...

    Ralf Folkerts wrote:
    > Ralf Folkerts schrieb:
    >
    > [...]
    >> So, now it's time to Load the Group-HIPER-PTFs or at least try to load
    >> :-)

    > [...]
    >
    > Hi Kirk,
    >
    > just an Update: The Group HIPER loaded and applied w/o any Problems!
    >
    > Cheers,
    > _ralf_


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


  9. Re: Problem applying Service to v4r5m0...

    Kirk Goins schrieb:

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


    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_

  10. Re: Problem applying Service to v4r5m0...

    Ralf Folkerts wrote:
    >
    > <> 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?


    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

+ Reply to Thread