3.4 M060?

DaveEngel · ‎Dec 19, 2008

Does anyone know anything about this?

http:www.ptc.comappserverwcmsstandardsfreefull.jsp?im_dbkey=85009&icg_dbkey=222

<h1>Customer Support Bulletin<h1><h2>ProINTRALINK 3.4 M060: Workspace Data Corruption<h2>

Several customers have reported an issue with ProINTRALINK 3.4 M060 to PTC Technical Support where s...

colmacpro · ‎Dec 19, 2008

It showed up this morning on the support site. We have had (4) workspace corruptions since we upgraded Nov, 9 with 30 users. Sporadic and non-repeatable. The loss of work has been minimal fortunately. I broadcast the notice to my users as soon as I seen it.

M060 has been out for 6 months.

Joe

bbailey · ‎Dec 19, 2008

We are seeing instances of this. Recommending that our folks save early
and often...

Woulda benn nice to have seen this a coupla weeks ago.

BrianToussaint · ‎Dec 19, 2008

Here is a little survey that I'm willing to collect the data and share with the list.

mkorch · ‎Dec 19, 2008

Since M060 has been out for 6 months and this is just being announced... I
would infer that everyone has been hesitant to trust PTC on this one. We
have a VERY large user base and just recently went to M060, we have been
seeing the workspaces going corrupt as described.

Should be interesting to see the survey results.

Thanks!
Margi

"Brian Toussaint"
<btoussaint@hoshi <br="/> zaki.com> To
-
12/19/2008 12:00 cc
PM
Subject
[proi] - RE: 3.4 M060?
Please respond to
"Brian Toussaint"
<btoussaint@hoshi <br="/> zaki.com>

Here is a little survey that I’m willing to collect the data and share with
the list.

RandyJones · ‎Dec 19, 2008

We upgraded to 3.4 M060 over Thanksgiving holiday. First day using it
was Monday December 1st. Since then we have had at least 12 cases of
corrupt workspaces. We have 20-40 users at any given time.

The first 3 corruptions occurred within the first 2 1/2 days of using
3.4 M060. I knew then there was a serious problem. What I have done is
start backing up the Local.ddb every 1/2hr and keeping these 1/2hr copies
for 24 hrs. This way when the Local.ddb file gets corrupted we can
go to the most current backup and put that one in the .proi directory.

I have also opened 3 calls to PTC on this issue. Interesting to note that
none of the support personnel assigned to these calls have mentioned
anything about this notice. Or the fact that there are many people
experiencing this issue.

--

mkorch · ‎Dec 19, 2008

Out of curiousity, what build of WF is everyone using who is seeing the
issue?

We have WF3 M080, and yes we know that isn't on the list. It worked just
fine during our intensive test phase though.

Margi

"Randy Jones"
<randy@greatplain <br="/> smfg.com> To
Dave Engel <david.f.engel@navy.mil>
12/19/2008 01:43 cc
PM -
Subject
[proi] - RE: 3.4 M060?
Please respond to
"Randy Jones"
<randy@greatplain <br="/> smfg.com>

We upgraded to 3.4 M060 over Thanksgiving holiday. First day using it
was Monday December 1st. Since then we have had at least 12 cases of
corrupt workspaces. We have 20-40 users at any given time.

The first 3 corruptions occurred within the first 2 1/2 days of using
3.4 M060. I knew then there was a serious problem. What I have done is
start backing up the Local.ddb every 1/2hr and keeping these 1/2hr copies
for 24 hrs. This way when the Local.ddb file gets corrupted we can
go to the most current backup and put that one in the .proi directory.

I have also opened 3 calls to PTC on this issue. Interesting to note that
none of the support personnel assigned to these calls have mentioned
anything about this notice. Or the fact that there are many people
experiencing this issue.

--

RandyJones · ‎Dec 19, 2008

Margi S Korch wrote:
> Out of curiousity, what build of WF is everyone using who is seeing the
> issue?

WF3 M180. We are planning on upgrading to WF4 M060 on Jan 12th.

>
> We have WF3 M080, and yes we know that isn't on the list. It worked just
> fine during our intensive test phase though.
>
> Margi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Randy Jones"
> <randy@greatplain <br="/>> smfg.com> To
> Dave Engel <david.f.engel@navy.mil>
> 12/19/2008 01:43 cc
> PM -
> Subject
> [proi] - RE: 3.4 M060?
> Please respond to
> "Randy Jones"
> <randy@greatplain <br="/>> smfg.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We upgraded to 3.4 M060 over Thanksgiving holiday. First day using it
> was Monday December 1st. Since then we have had at least 12 cases of
> corrupt workspaces. We have 20-40 users at any given time.
>
> The first 3 corruptions occurred within the first 2 1/2 days of using
> 3.4 M060. I knew then there was a serious problem. What I have done is
> start backing up the Local.ddb every 1/2hr and keeping these 1/2hr copies
> for 24 hrs. This way when the Local.ddb file gets corrupted we can
> go to the most current backup and put that one in the .proi directory.
>
> I have also opened 3 calls to PTC on this issue. Interesting to note that
> none of the support personnel assigned to these calls have mentioned
> anything about this notice. Or the fact that there are many people
> experiencing this issue.
>
> --

rrich · ‎Dec 19, 2008

Thanks for the heads up. I was just considering going to WF4 on Ilink 3.4
M060. I was looking last week of Jan or early Feb. I guess I will hold off
until this issue is resolved. And just think we were asked to pay
additional maintenance $$ for this cut of 3.4.

Ron Rich
Staff Mechanical Engineer
Keithley Instruments, Inc.
28775 Aurora Rd.
Solon, OH 44139

440-498-2954

estevenson · ‎Dec 19, 2008

Howdy all,

We feel very fortunate than. Pelco has been on Intralink 3.4 M060 for
several months. We have not seen any of the corrupt workspace issues
that have been reported.

Perhaps that is because we are on WF4 M050.

Could it be that PTC has already fixed it, but doesn't know it?

Of course, I have to add the standard disclaimer that just because we
aren't seeing it, doesn't mean that you won't. And, no you can't steal
Josh from us.

- Ed

dcoterel · ‎Dec 19, 2008

Yea, but I bet he can be bought!

This message came from my mobile device, please be tolerant of any typos.

BrianToussaint · ‎Dec 22, 2008

So far my survey is showing that all but one person who has responded to having a corrupt workspace is on WF3. I forgot to ask which date code though.

Brian

DaveEngel · ‎Dec 22, 2008

Actually M060 was provided to all customers with active maint.
M070 is the cut that requires the additional "ransom payment". However
I believe access to technical support for M060 requires the ransom too.
Even if you report an issue with M060 you won't get the fix with out $$$
unless they release an M061?

PTC still has M070 on the books for release in January 2009. I
think I'll wait for it, but I wonder if they'll delay it?

Has anyone looked at Windchill 9.1 yet? I haven't seen
Intralink 9.1, however I did load up PDMLink 9.1. With Wildfire 4.0 it
has workspace frames. I also see that you can download Pro/E files
directly from the "commonspace" In 8.0//9.0 when you "downloaded
content" you would only get a link to the file. It also has a new
package functionality that can be use to export data. (I'm not sure if
that is in Intralink or just PDMLink however.)

Intralink 3.4 is dead, but with the economy the way it is who is
going to have the resources for migration to Windchill
Intralink/PDMLink?

Dave Engel

BrianToussaint · ‎Jan 05, 2009

I will leave this survey open until Wednesday morning because of the holidays. After that time, I will send out a summary of the survey.

Sincerely,
Brian Toussaint
CAD Administrator

These views are mine and not necissarily those of my employer.
Hoshizaki America, Inc.
618 Hwy. 74 S., Peachtree City, GA 30269

ehill · ‎Jan 05, 2009

We are looking at a 3.4/WF4 upgrade, and I am concerned for obvious reasons about this development with 3.4 M060. It is not clear from the posts or the PTC statement whether the problem lies in Pro/ENGINEER or Pro/INTRALINK.

If it is a Pro/ENGINEER problem, then it seems the solution will be simple enough, and have minimal impact, since the customers will be able to correct the problem when the next maintenance builds of Pro/ENGINEER come out.

If it is a Pro/INTRALINK problem, then it is a bit stickier. It seems to me th eregular maintenance customers would be entitled to a new maintenance build of Pro/INTRALINK 3.4 that fixes the problem. However, that would directly contradict previous statements that only extended maintenance customers will be allowed to get 3.4 maintenance builds beyond M060.

I would like to see a response from PTC clarifying this issue. Where is the problem - Pro/E or Pro/I? If it is in Pro/I, will regular maintenance customers be allowed to have the fixed build?

FYI Dave Engel: I looked back at the relevant message history, and found Michael Campbell’s post regarding 3.4 M060 support. He stated that regular maintenance customers are entitled to technical support on M060, even without paying the extended maintenance fee.

Eric Hill
Staff Engineer
ASM America
(T) 602.470.2720
(F) 602.470.0747

BrianToussaint · ‎Jan 07, 2009

Okay, here is the summary of my survey.
I want to thank everyone who took part.
It looks like the workspace corruption could be linked to WF 3.

proed · ‎Jan 14, 2009

First of all, many thanks to Dave for starting this thread in December... Back then I just happened to spot it (while on holiday!) as we were about to upgrade 3 production servers to M060 the week after Christmas. I decided to postpone all further upgrades... 400+ colleagues could rest at ease after all my badgering to get checked in. It was annoying (to put it mildly), after testing server upgrades for weeks to have to put all that work on ice - though I'm glad I decided to leave things be and avoid the risk of corrupt workspaces as others have experienced.

Also, it was worrying that I had to hear this from a third party - not direct from PTC (though I'm glad of the service provided by PTC/USER). You'd think if the datecode was withdrawn, it would be a high priority to directly contact all customers who'd already ordered/downloaded it? The understated one-page notice didn't seem enough, and t4his whole thing has badly affected PTC's reputation here.

Before Christmas I asked PTC for a fix - more than 3 weeks on I've heard today they have a patch available to active customers. It'll also release as M061, seemingly available without the extra year's maintenance. (I'm wondering what that extra year's payment was actually for??)

If any fellow Intralink 3.4 folks are reading this is in Boston, it would be great to hear a more public + "official" PTC response. I couldn't make the journey this year, though previous years I've witnessed some heated discussions on Intralink.

Apologies if it seems like a rant, but you do get the feeling Intralink 3.x is a forgotten child of the PTC family, despite the millions of dollars-worth of design files held in these databases... If a company like ours pulled a released product in this manner, all sorts of stuff would fly.

Regards
Edwin Muirhead, CAD Manager, Weatherford

In Reply to Eric Hill:

We are looking at a 3.4/WF4 upgrade, and I am concerned for obvious reasons about this development with 3.4 M060. It is not clear from the posts or the PTC statement whether the problem lies in Pro/ENGINEER or Pro/INTRALINK.
If it is a Pro/ENGINEER problem, then it seems the solution will be simple enough, and have minimal impact, since the customers will be able to correct the problem when the next maintenance builds of Pro/ENGINEER come out.
If it is a Pro/INTRALINK problem, then it is a bit stickier. It seems to me th eregular maintenance customers would be entitled to a new maintenance build of Pro/INTRALINK 3.4 that fixes the problem. However, that would directly contradict previous statements that only extended maintenance customers will be allowed to get 3.4 maintenance builds beyond M060.
I would like to see a response from PTC clarifying this issue. Where is the problem - Pro/E or Pro/I? If it is in Pro/I, will regular maintenance customers be allowed to have the fixed build?
FYI Dave Engel: I looked back at the relevant message history, and found Michael Campbell’s post regarding 3.4 M060 support. He stated that regular maintenance customers are entitled to technical support on M060, even without paying the extended maintenance fee.

Eric Hill
Staff Engineer
ASM America
(T) 602.470.2720
(F) 602.470.0747