| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| Message Broker v6 and fixpack9 |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| regonda |
 Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:17 am Post subject: Message Broker v6 and fixpack9 |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 43
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
There are probably hundreds of bugs fixed between those levels.
The advantage is that you won't run into them if you apply that fixpack.
It's like if you keep putting gasoline in your vehicle, then you won't run out of gasoline. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| regonda |
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 43
|
Hi mqjeff,
 thanks for nice n funny explanation, but would be better if u can list one or two bugs which are of great significant....
thanku.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| WMBDEV1 |
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sentinel
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 888
Location: UK
|
| regonda wrote: |
can list one or two bugs which are of great significant....
|
I guess they are only of great significance if you encounter them / would have encountered them if you didnt apply the fixpack.
To answer this, it kinda depends what functionality of the broker you use and if the fix pack affects that area so to try and determine this id read the release notes to see if there are fixes in the areas of broker you use heavily or are of sufficient concern to you.
Of course, keeping up to date with fixes stops the standard response from support teams of "upgrade to the lateset version before we look at it properly!" and is obviously a good thing to do!
My two pennies |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| regonda wrote: |
thanks for nice n funny explanation, but would be better if u can list one or two bugs which are of great significant....
|
Bugs are only significant when you hit them. So if your system is stable, with no issues and you're not developing then you don't need to apply a fix pack.
Of course the first time the admin applies maintenance to the OS or something else changes someplace then you might need it. Or if you start developing. Or maybe one of the fixes improves the efficientcy of something you're doing. This is why the fixes are listed in the readme.
As a bare minimum (as has been pointed out) it stops the support desk saying "apply the latest fix pack and call us back if the problem persists".
Also depends on your site policy on applying maintenance.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| regonda wrote: |
thanks for nice n funny explanation, but would be better if u can list one or two bugs which are of great significant....
|
Bugs are only significant when you hit them. So if your system is stable, with no issues and you're not developing then you don't need to apply a fix pack. |
The only stable system is one that is powered off, disconnected from everything, encased in concrete, and buried at the bottom of an ocean.
The chance that you will hit a bug that has already been fixed grows at a complex rate that has to factor in the amount of time that is elapsing, the volume of processing and it's rate of change, the rate of change of the business climate, the rate of change of management's whims, and a number of other factors.
A system that has sat for six months with no maintenance of any kind has a higher degree of Risk of Failure than a system that has sat for one month with no maintenance.
Message Broker and MQ FixPacs should be applied at least once a year in any given environment, as a matter of basic administrative practice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
There is risk in applying maintenance; namely: you might introduce a new bug. But there is risk in not applying maintenance, namely: you are not fixing things that others (mostly insurance companies - God love 'em) have already encountered.
IBM provides preventive maintenance because it (or its customers) discovered bugs in the software.
There are two ways to view maintenance, and both imply the relationship between risk and benefit; or, more accurately, your organizations aversion to risk:
1. fix it only when it breaks; and
2. fix it before it breaks.
Number 1 above presumes that all is well at your shop; and therefore, there is no reason to apply maintenance.
Number 2 above presumes that, even though all is currently well at your shop, you might encounter a bug someone else has already encountered. Think of this like getting a flu shot before you get the flu.
In discussions with management, I ask them if they do PM (preventive maintenance) on company (or their own) vehicles and other equipment. If so, why. The same q&a works for software.
It's been my experience that, with rare exceptions, there is more risk not applying maintenance.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
