DX NetOps Manager

Spectrum 10.2.0 Patch List 

01-20-2017 04:52 PM

This document will be updated as new Spectrum PTF or recommended Debug patches become available for the Spectrum 10.2.0 release.

 

3/13/2017:  Recommended for all 10.2.0 installs are PTF_10.2.001 replaced with PTF_10.2.020, PTF_10.2.003 and PTF_10.2.016 as well as Debug patch 10.2.0.D128 to prevent a SpectroSERVER crash when NCM synch tasks are performed.  You can also install service pack 10.2.1 instead of these patches, they are all included in 10.2.1.

 

8/17/2017: New PTF patches and knowledgebase docs added.

 

REMINDER: It is not recommended any patch be installed unless you have the problem the patch is meant to resolve, or anticipate having the problem.  

Statistics
0 Favorited
5 Views
2 Files
0 Shares
3 Downloads
Attachment(s)
docx file
Spectrum_10_2_0_patch_list.docx   95K   1 version
Uploaded - 05-29-2019
pdf file
Spectrum_10_2_0_patch_list.pdf   627K   1 version
Uploaded - 05-29-2019

Tags and Keywords

Comments

12-21-2017 03:57 AM

Hi Rene,

 

Is it necessary to uninstall PTF 10.2.020 before installing 10.2.029?

04-04-2017 10:14 AM

Hi Veronique, 

 

Spectrum 10.2.1 service pack has a few memory leak fixes.  If you cannot get 10.2.1 installed, then i would suggest PTF_10.2.029 which has the same memory leak fixes for Spectrum 10.2.0:

 

 Symptom: Unknown SpectroSERVER memory growth over time.
 Resolution: Included all known memory leak fixes included in 10.2.1.
 (DE274474, 00650306)

 

--

Rene'

04-03-2017 06:18 AM

It seems to be our case : memory linearly growing since we upgraded to 10.2 ☹

03-29-2017 09:15 AM

PTF_10.2.029 is the same as PTF_10.2.020 with the exception of this:

 

 Symptom: Unknown SpectroSERVER memory growth over time. 
Resolution: Included all known memory leak fixes included in 10.2.1.
(DE274474, 00650306)

It is not necessary to install PTF_10.2.029 unless you have experienced a SpectroSERVER memory growth scenario.

 

--

Rene'

03-29-2017 02:23 AM

Hi Rene,

 

is it recommended to install 10.02.00.PTF 10.2.029 instead of 10.02.00.PTF 10.2.020?

 

Regards,

Damir

03-21-2017 08:48 AM

It is on track to release by the end of Q1.

 

Cheers

Jay

03-20-2017 03:18 PM

Any chance 10.2.1 is being released this month? 

03-20-2017 02:19 PM

No, you will have to open a chat or case and request the patches.  They will then be uploaded to a secure ftp area for you to download via the case.

03-20-2017 02:00 PM

Is there a link to Download anything from the Patch List?

03-15-2017 12:31 PM

Yes, as the first PTF patch is released I'll create a new 10.2.1 patch list document and get it posted to the community.

 

At this time all 10.2.0 PTF patches and at least the 10.2.0.D128 debug patch have been rolled into 10.2.1.  We have no 10.2.1 patch requests in queue.

 

--

Rene'

03-15-2017 03:14 AM

Will we get the PTF patches, which couldn't be rolled into 10.2.1, very soon after 10.2.1 was released?

03-14-2017 03:16 PM

I totally understand not being able to give dates.  "Soon" is good enough.  Thanks!

03-14-2017 03:13 PM

Take a look at PTF_10.2.020, it replaces PTF_10.2.001 and adds a few other fixes.

 

Yes most of the PTF patches available now will roll into 10.2.1, but some may have to be rebuilt for 10.2.1 if they were not ready before code freeze. 

 

As for the timing of when to expect 10.2.1 to release I can only tell you, soon.  I'm not at liberty to give you any dates, sorry.

03-14-2017 02:47 PM

Hello Rene.  I'm 99.9% positive that the issues highlighted in 10.2.001 are exactly the issues I opened up a couple of cases for back in the January timeframe.  We have done some workarounds to make things a bit more stable, but still see some issues that this could probably fix.  I am assuming that all of these PTFs will be rolled up in to the next version release though.  Could we get a hint on when that may be?  The timing would definitely impact our rollout strategy.  Thanks.

03-13-2017 01:44 PM

I wouldn't recommend installing any patch unless you've experienced the problem or anticipate having the problem.  10.2.0.D128 prevents a SpectroSERVER from crashing when a NCM sync happens.  If you are not using NCM or do not have sync tasks setup, then I wouldn't install the 10.2.0.D128 patch.   The knowledgebase doc should explain the problem more so you can self-identify if the patch is for you or not.

 

A debug patch that produces output, most likely will need to be uninstalled to stop the output.  If it has been created with a switch to turn debugging on/off, it will be detailed in the release note post install steps.

 

--

Rene'

03-13-2017 01:30 PM

Thanks for the quick reply.

 

Do you see any reason why this debug patch shouldn't be installed in a production environment? Can the patch be used to fix the SS crash without having it dump debug information to a file/database etc.?

03-13-2017 12:28 PM

The companion knowledgebase docs are being worked on and will be published.  As soon as they are available I will add them to the patch list document so you'll have more detail on the problem and solution.

 

PTF patches are for specific fixes, sometimes conflicting code requires us to put more than one fix in a PTF patch, i.e. PTF_10.2.020.  PTF patches also go through a QA process and depending on time of release will roll into the next release like 10.2.1.  Any PTF patch not done in time to be included in a release like 10.2.1 will be one of the first post-release patches.

 

Debug patches serve the purpose of both debug output to help further troubleshoot an issue and potential fixes.  Some debug patches will be rebuilt into PTF patches, while others close to release time will be rolled into the next release.  Debug patch 10.2.0.D128 is one of these patches, the description in the release note is very thin because we needed to get it built and out to prove the potential fix and stop a SpectroSERVER from crashing.  A knowledgebase doc is being written to explain the SpectroSERVER crash is due to a NCM sync task.

 

Both patch types are uninstallable, unlike Spectrum releases.  Customer should always preserve a copy of the install environment in case roll back to pre-install is needed.  After a successful upgrade or patch install, it is also recommended a new Spectrum modeling database save be done and noted to be post XYZ install.

 

--

Rene'

03-13-2017 11:56 AM

Hi,

 

1) The latest Patch List document doesn't state the purpose of 10.02.00.D128. Even though it does reference DE266175, perhaps a bit of background should be provided within the document itself.

2) Is there any difference between a debug patch and a PTF? All other patches are listed as PTF, yet this specific patch is listed as debug, which makes me a bit uneasy about installing it in production. Can anyone elaborate on the differences? The document itself doesn't explain these differences.

 

Thanks!

03-07-2017 11:16 AM

We need a support case to upload the patches to.  You can open a chat or a case with the request of what you want for what OS.

 

--

Rene’

 

 

Rene’ Cantwell

Support Delivery Manager

 

 

CA Technologies | 273 Corporate Dr Suite 200 | Portsmouth, NH 03801

Office: 603-334-2497 | Rene.Cantwell@ca.com

<mailto:Rene.Cantwell@ca.com>[CA]<http://www.ca.com/us/default.aspx>[Twitter]<http://twitter.com/CAInc>[Slideshare]<http://www.slideshare.net/cainc>[Facebook]<https://www.facebook.com/CATechnologies>[YouTube]<http://www.youtube.com/user/catechnologies>[LinkedIn]<http://www.linkedin.com/company/1372?goback=.cps_1244823420724_1>[Google]<https://plus.google.com/CATechnologies>[Google+]<http://www.ca.com/us/rss.aspx?intcmp=footernav>

03-07-2017 10:59 AM

Thanks. Then please provide me with PTF_10.2.016 (we have a DSS), as well as PTF_10.2.020 if it can be installed on top of PTF_10.2.001

03-07-2017 10:52 AM

PTF_10.2.001 is still a valid patch for the SNMP work that was done.  PTF_10.2.020 has that fix plus a few others for the Secure Domain Connector that are within the same code areas.  It also includes the removal of the unknown log-entries from the VNM.OUT file.  If you don’t have Secure Domain Connector or care about the VNM.OUT messages, than you don’t necessarily need PTF_10.2.020.

 

PTF_10.2.016 is also recommended for distributed environments to prevent an ArchMgr crash.

 

--

Rene’

 

 

Rene’ Cantwell

Support Delivery Manager

 

 

CA Technologies | 273 Corporate Dr Suite 200 | Portsmouth, NH 03801

Office: 603-334-2497 | Rene.Cantwell@ca.com

<mailto:Rene.Cantwell@ca.com>[CA]<http://www.ca.com/us/default.aspx>[Twitter]<http://twitter.com/CAInc>[Slideshare]<http://www.slideshare.net/cainc>[Facebook]<https://www.facebook.com/CATechnologies>[YouTube]<http://www.youtube.com/user/catechnologies>[LinkedIn]<http://www.linkedin.com/company/1372?goback=.cps_1244823420724_1>[Google]<https://plus.google.com/CATechnologies>[Google+]<http://www.ca.com/us/rss.aspx?intcmp=footernav>

03-07-2017 10:43 AM

Hi,

I have scheduled an upgrade from 9.4 to v10.2 + PTF 10.2.001 & 10.2.003 for next Monday. This is what I have under test now for 3 weeks.

Do you advise me not to use PTF 10.2.001 ? Why ?

Thanks,

               Veronique

02-08-2017 10:41 AM

Ok, you can open a case or a chat - both will allow the support engineer to attach patch files for you.

02-08-2017 10:31 AM

There was a PTF which I thought I may need, but if necessary I'll just speak to support. Thanks

02-08-2017 08:50 AM

Yes, at least for most patches.  Reason being, the patches can conflict with each other and we do not recommend installing patches if you don't have the problem they were built to fix.  In addition we want to track who is getting what.

 

Is there a PTF patch in particular you are thinking of?

 

Are there other changes or enhancements you would like to see with the process or patch list doc?

 

--

Rene'

02-08-2017 05:56 AM

Hi,

 

Is it necessary to speak with CA Support in order to acquire PTFs?

Related Entries and Links

No Related Resource entered.