WAS Express V5.1 for V5R3 i5 520 box - Websphere

This is a discussion on WAS Express V5.1 for V5R3 i5 520 box - Websphere ; Hi, We just ordered an eServer i5 520 with v5R3. We are upgrading from an iSeries 820 with v5R1. I read in the IBM eServer i5 520 executive summary the WAS Express will be installed in on every 520 box. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: WAS Express V5.1 for V5R3 i5 520 box

  1. WAS Express V5.1 for V5R3 i5 520 box

    Hi,

    We just ordered an eServer i5 520 with v5R3.
    We are upgrading from an iSeries 820 with v5R1.
    I read in the IBM eServer i5 520 executive summary
    the WAS Express will be installed in on every 520 box.
    When looking through the software we received for the upgrade I did not see
    anything refering to WAS Express.
    First is it included as a free install, second is there a
    specific product code that we have to ask for?

    John



  2. Re: WAS Express V5.1 for V5R3 i5 520 box

    Have you checked DSPSFWRSC or GO LICPGM to see if its loaded already?

    Ive heard that the operating system at v5r3 uses WebSphere so this is
    why it is being bundled for free with the new servers at v5r3.

    John Snyder

  3. Re: WAS Express V5.1 for V5R3 i5 520 box

    Was Express 5.0 and 5.1 for iSeries are included in V5R3 shipments. The
    Express CDs are shipped in a product called Web Enablement (5722WE1).
    The ordering default is to include 5722WE1 on theV5R3 order, but it is
    possible to deselect it if for some reason you did not want it.

    john fehr wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > We just ordered an eServer i5 520 with v5R3.
    > We are upgrading from an iSeries 820 with v5R1.
    > I read in the IBM eServer i5 520 executive summary
    > the WAS Express will be installed in on every 520 box.
    > When looking through the software we received for the upgrade I did not see
    > anything refering to WAS Express.
    > First is it included as a free install, second is there a
    > specific product code that we have to ask for?
    >
    > John
    >
    >



+ Reply to Thread