Patchlevel upgrade? - VMS

This is a discussion on Patchlevel upgrade? - VMS ; Hi guys, i need to explain to some old fashiond sysadmins (whoś motto is: Never change a winning team") why we should update al of our VMS systems to the latest Patchlevels. i know that HP is already telling that, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Patchlevel upgrade?

  1. Patchlevel upgrade?

    Hi guys,

    i need to explain to some old fashiond sysadmins (whoś motto is: Never
    change a winning team") why we should update al of our VMS systems to the
    latest Patchlevels.

    i know that HP is already telling that, but thatś not enough for them.

    also having some troubles convincing the Aplication guyś that a patchupdate
    doesn't change anything functional to VMS (or its layerd products)

    can u help me with some amo for this?

    with Regards,

    Robin,

  2. Re: Patchlevel upgrade?

    The Spriteman wrote:
    > Hi guys,
    >
    > i need to explain to some old fashiond sysadmins (whoś motto is: Never
    > change a winning team") why we should update al of our VMS systems to the
    > latest Patchlevels.
    >
    > i know that HP is already telling that, but thatś not enough for them.
    >
    > also having some troubles convincing the Aplication guyś that a patchupdate
    > doesn't change anything functional to VMS (or its layerd products)
    >
    > can u help me with some amo for this?
    >
    > with Regards,
    >
    > Robin,


    How about a case or two of blanks?

    If it ain't broke, don't fix it!!!!!!!!!!!


  3. Re: Patchlevel upgrade?

    On Jun 1, 6:30 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert"
    wrote:
    > The Spriteman wrote:
    > > Hi guys,

    >
    > > i need to explain to some old fashiond sysadmins (who motto is: Never
    > > change a winning team") why we should update al of our VMS systems to the
    > > latest Patchlevels.

    >
    > > i know that HP is already telling that, but that not enough for them.

    >
    > > also having some troubles convincing the Aplication guy that a patchupdate
    > > doesn't change anything functional to VMS (or its layerd products)

    >
    > > can u help me with some amo for this?

    >
    > > with Regards,

    >
    > > Robin,

    >
    > How about a case or two of blanks?
    >
    > If it ain't broke, don't fix it!!!!!!!!!!!



    Patches can include performance improvements and useful new
    functionality. You have to wade through lots of release notes to find
    the info :-(


  4. Re: Patchlevel upgrade?

    IanMiller wrote:
    > On Jun 1, 6:30 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert"
    > wrote:
    >> The Spriteman wrote:
    >>> Hi guys,
    >>> i need to explain to some old fashiond sysadmins (who motto is: Never
    >>> change a winning team") why we should update al of our VMS systems to the
    >>> latest Patchlevels.
    >>> i know that HP is already telling that, but that not enough for them.
    >>> also having some troubles convincing the Aplication guy that a patchupdate
    >>> doesn't change anything functional to VMS (or its layerd products)
    >>> can u help me with some amo for this?
    >>> with Regards,
    >>> Robin,

    >> How about a case or two of blanks?
    >>
    >> If it ain't broke, don't fix it!!!!!!!!!!!

    >
    >
    > Patches can include performance improvements and useful new
    > functionality. You have to wade through lots of release notes to find
    > the info :-(
    >


    This is the first time I've heard it suggested that patches add new
    functionality! Historically, patches have been used to fix bugs. New
    functionality has typically been introduced in new releases of the software!

    I would install security patches immediately. Others can wait for my
    convenience or for the problem to manifest on my system.

    With a few exceptions, VMS has run well without patches. The problems
    fixed by patches tend to be obscure and, in my experience, occur
    infrequently in normal operation. Thank you, VMS Engineering, for a
    superb product!


  5. Re: Patchlevel upgrade?

    On Jun 1, 3:39*pm, "Richard B. Gilbert"
    wrote:
    > This is the first time I've heard it suggested that patches add new
    > functionality!


    There have been cases in the past where a patch to a prior version
    will include new functionality from a more recent version. For
    example, giving v6.x some of the v7.x feature set.

    >*Others can wait for my
    > convenience or for the problem to manifest on my system.


    So much for preventive maintenance.

    > Thank you, VMS Engineering, for a
    > superb product!


    And for good patches. I can't recall an instance where I installed a
    patch and had to withdraw it. As a result, I do try to keep my
    client's systems up to date. The downside is that some of the patches
    require a system reboot, and there goes the uptime record. Once every
    six months or so isn't asking too much, though I have let systems run
    for a year+ before getting around to do the patch updates.

    I also can't recall a VMS patch ever breaking any applications. They
    have at times improved performance, so as a general rule I'd say
    there's no reason to avoid keeping the systems up-to-date as long as
    the occasional reboot isn't a factor. (And not all patches require a
    reboot.)

  6. Re: Patchlevel upgrade?

    On Jun 1, 4:08 pm, FrankS wrote:
    > On Jun 1, 3:39 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert"
    > wrote:
    >
    > > This is the first time I've heard it suggested that patches add new
    > > functionality!

    >
    > There have been cases in the past where a patch to a prior version
    > will include new functionality from a more recent version. For
    > example, giving v6.x some of the v7.x feature set.


    I had a case in which the new 6.2 BACKUP incremental functionality was
    added to my 5.5-? system at a job I had in the late 90's (mixed
    blessing). I think it was part of a Y2K ECO kit, but I had installed
    at least two other ECO kits specifically to cure some problems (I
    think it was two), and it might have been one of those. I don't
    remember.

    >
    > > Others can wait for my
    > > convenience or for the problem to manifest on my system.


    Oil changes? We don't need no stinking oil changes! ;*)

    > So much for preventive maintenance.
    >
    > > Thank you, VMS Engineering, for a
    > > superb product!

    >
    > And for good patches. I can't recall an instance where I installed a
    > patch and had to withdraw it. As a result, I do try to keep my
    > client's systems up to date. The downside is that some of the patches
    > require a system reboot, and there goes the uptime record. Once every
    > six months or so isn't asking too much, though I have let systems run
    > for a year+ before getting around to do the patch updates.


    Reboot: A good chance to run AUTOGEN!

    >
    > I also can't recall a VMS patch ever breaking any applications. They
    > have at times improved performance, so as a general rule I'd say
    > there's no reason to avoid keeping the systems up-to-date as long as
    > the occasional reboot isn't a factor. (And not all patches require a
    > reboot.)


    I've never had anything broken by one, either.

    AEF


  7. Re: Patchlevel upgrade?

    On Jun 2, 1:13 am, AEF wrote:
    > On Jun 1, 4:08 pm, FrankS wrote:
    >
    > > On Jun 1, 3:39 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert"
    > > wrote:

    >
    > > > This is the first time I've heard it suggested that patches add new
    > > > functionality!

    >
    > > There have been cases in the past where a patch to a prior version
    > > will include new functionality from a more recent version. For
    > > example, giving v6.x some of the v7.x feature set.

    >
    > I had a case in which the new 6.2 BACKUP incremental functionality was
    > added to my 5.5-? system at a job I had in the late 90's (mixed
    > blessing). I think it was part of a Y2K ECO kit, but I had installed
    > at least two other ECO kits specifically to cure some problems (I
    > think it was two), and it might have been one of those. I don't
    > remember.
    >
    >
    >
    > > > Others can wait for my
    > > > convenience or for the problem to manifest on my system.

    >
    > Oil changes? We don't need no stinking oil changes! ;*)
    >
    > > So much for preventive maintenance.

    >
    > > > Thank you, VMS Engineering, for a
    > > > superb product!

    >
    > > And for good patches. I can't recall an instance where I installed a
    > > patch and had to withdraw it. As a result, I do try to keep my
    > > client's systems up to date. The downside is that some of the patches
    > > require a system reboot, and there goes the uptime record. Once every
    > > six months or so isn't asking too much, though I have let systems run
    > > for a year+ before getting around to do the patch updates.

    >
    > Reboot: A good chance to run AUTOGEN!
    >
    >
    >
    > > I also can't recall a VMS patch ever breaking any applications. They
    > > have at times improved performance, so as a general rule I'd say
    > > there's no reason to avoid keeping the systems up-to-date as long as
    > > the occasional reboot isn't a factor. (And not all patches require a
    > > reboot.)

    >
    > I've never had anything broken by one, either.
    >
    > AEF



    patches sometimes include new things backported from the current
    version. There are occasionally issues with patches so it is important
    to test on a non-production system if at all possible. Read the
    release notes in the patch announcement.
    The UPDATE kits are collections of previously released patches and are
    released quarterly according to a previously announced schedule. You
    may wish to consider a patch policy around those,

+ Reply to Thread