 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Database Servers DB2InformixIngresMS SQLOraclePervasive.SQLPostgreSQLProgressSybaseDesktop Databases FileMakerFoxProMS AccessParadoxGeneral General DB TopicsDatabase TheoryRelated Topics Java Development.NET DevelopmentVB DevelopmentMore Topics ... |
Database Forum / DB2 Topics / January 2005Will we be able to apply FP8 directly ?
Dear all, Will we be able to apply FP8 (that comes out end of January) directly without obligation to go thru FP7a or will we have to step thru FP7a ? I wish to know the answer for both 8.1 and migration from V7.2 to 8.2 FP8. Best regards, Jean-Marc > Dear all, > > Will we be able to apply FP8 (that comes out end of January) directly > without obligation to go thru FP7a or will we have to step thru FP7a ? You will be able to go directly from v8.1 to FP8, aka v8.2 FP1. > I wish to know the answer for both 8.1 and migration from V7.2 to 8.2 FP8. For v7: Unix & Linux: apply FP8 to v8, then run db2imigr. Windows: if you install v8.1 or v8.2, you'll already be migrated. Hope that helps. > > Dear all, > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Hope that helps. Hi Darin, Thanks ! good news though :-) Regards, Jean-Marc So is this an actual fix pack or is it going to have so much new functionality bundled with it that it should of been labeled as a new release ala Fixpack 7? Spencer > "Darin McBride" <dmcbride@naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me> a écrit dans le > message de news:EjBGd.93850$6l.89932@pd7tw2no... > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Jean-Marc So is this an actual fix pack or is it going to have so much new functionality bundled with it that it should of been labeled as a new release ala Fixpack 7? Spencer FP7 (or FP7a) is labeled as DB2 version 8.2 FP 6a (or 6b) is DB2 version 8.1 Ya I know and am well aware of this and don't agree with it. The "stinger" functionality should of been a seperate major release if you ask me. Releasing major functionality in a fix pack is not appropriate and prevents customers not wanting to test the new functionality with no choice as no new fix packs minus the "stinger" functionality are coming for 8.1 > Ya I know and am well aware of this and don't agree with it. The > "stinger" functionality should of been a seperate major release if you > ask me. Releasing major functionality in a fix pack is not appropriate > and prevents customers not wanting to test the new functionality with > no choice as no new fix packs minus the "stinger" functionality are > coming for 8.1 It helps if you include the post you are responding to. By providing 8.2 as a fixpak, and not a major release, then it is free to people who purchased 8.1 Otherwise, it would cost money to upgrade to 8.2 This is decision made by IBM marketing, and overall is a positive for customers. The last functionality improvements in 8.1 was fixpak 4. Fixpak 5, 6, and 6a included fixes only, so it is a fairly stable release at this point. IBM reserves the right to introduce Fixpak 6b (which I believe is coming soon) or other fixpaks for version 8.1. IBM did the same thing with 7.2, which was released as Fixpak 3 to 7.1. > Ya I know and am well aware of this and don't agree with it. The > "stinger" functionality should of been a seperate major release if you > ask me. Releasing major functionality in a fix pack is not appropriate > and prevents customers not wanting to test the new functionality with > no choice as no new fix packs minus the "stinger" functionality are > coming for 8.1 There are multiple schools of thought on that one... Yours is a valid one. Unfortunately the decision to go either way isn't that black and white. Cheers Serge  SignatureSerge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab > > Ya I know and am well aware of this and don't agree with it. The > > "stinger" functionality should of been a seperate major release if you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Cheers > Serge Hi Serge, At least there is some progress because you will be able to apply FP8 without a step on FP7 :-) What about the db2update "Windows Update" like, will we be able soon to choose APARs ? Best regards, Jean-Marc > At least there is some progress because you will be able to apply FP8 > without a step on FP7 :-) You may know one of the most vocal proponants of that move. (IBM got that message loud and clear from many sources, and this newsgroup is probably one of them.) > What about the db2update "Windows Update" like, will we be able soon to > choose APARs ? That will be very difficult. DB2 is one large compilation unit. This gives DB2 a cohesion that your average operating system, for example, does not need. For example, just because Wordpad is changed won't affect CMD.EXE or IE. But changing the bufferpool manager in DB2 is highly likely to affect the SQL compiler - even if the SQL compiler team is unaware of the change (say a constant in a header file). This cohesion gives DB2 some of its performance which I'm sure IBM is unwilling to sacrafice. This means that version 8 will not see much more granularity than we have now. Perhaps a bit - we saw that with some FP8 fixes being backfit into FP6b, so that customers who want that fix without the new features of FP7 can do so. More interim fixes are a possibility, but it will still be an all-or-nothing upgrade: all the APARs offered, or none at all. After that, who knows. But I would not expect to see IBM go and break any of its engine-level cohesion. The TPC results are too important in marketing in this industry. Breaking out the graphical tools, perhaps. But not the engine. Talking to your IBM rep is the best way to let IBM know your concerns. > > At least there is some progress because you will be able to apply FP8 > > without a step on FP7 :-) [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > But not the engine. Talking to your IBM rep is the best way to let IBM > know your concerns. Hi Darin, It was just a question. Thanks for all these details, I appreciate to get your appreciation on this. Maybe the "db2 update" tool was uncessary ... "More interim fixes are a possibility"; it would be I think a great idea. The gap between FP7 and FP8 as number of days and the number of APARs (I imagine as I don't have the list that Serge has :-)) seems too high. It would certainely help to avoid search on problems that are corrected in the next fixpack ? Cheers, Jean-Marc |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.