Why is it we can't just do patch upgrades lately?....

[Rita C Workman]

I'm starting this thread to get the viewpoint from the ITRC Forums community.

In the past we upgraded our boxes O/S, be it cold install or update-ux and from then on we did patch upgrades and upgraded software to newer versions as separate required. Then more patches.

But lately, I'm seeing that we have to do full update-ux to upgrade things because this software must be loaded from this dated version of O/S...etc.etc.etc.

Why is this? Why can't we simply patch our boxes using something like 'swa' to get all the patches for all the software we need anymore. And run update-ux (or cold) when we really are updating the operating system?

I can understand that there might be exceptions when you do have to do this - but lately every time I turn around it seems to be seeing - update O/S to update the software!

Someone please explain the technical reason, or at least the absolute only times we HAVE to update O/S, cause this old lady is beginning to wonder ... why?

Thanks!

[Duncan Edmonstone · Accepted solution]

Rita,

Apply the patch bundles never did really "update" any products on HP-UX - it just patched existing versions.

For example, applying the Dec 2006 11.11 pathc bundle wouldn't upgrade Serviceguard from 11.15 to 11.16, or OnlineJFS from 3.3 to 3.5, we still had to dig out those application CDs to do that.

What's chnaged is that there are many more products out there that are tested and qualified on a narrower set of configurations - the classic example of the is Integrity Virtual Machines - you need to get to certain OS releases to be supported and this involves more than just patching existing product versions, it actually requires newer versions.

All that the update-ux produt does is combine together all the manual product updates you might have done in the past into just one set.

It also allows HP to make bigger changes to the OS without annoying the ISVs with having to re-qualify

The issue (I think) is that in the old days update-ux was used for major OS upgrades only and had a pretty jaded reputation and was geneally avoided in favour of cold installs. The update-ux process which takes you from 11.31.0809 to 11.31.0903 and the like is generally much less fraught - just think of it as applying a product bundle and a patch bundle all in one go... and also think of it of reducing the chances of having "incompatible product bundles" (like those WBEM providers I hear you love so much!)

HTH

Duncan

[Torsten.]

IMHO the reason is because most individual products within the OS are independent software units now (components like LVM, drivers, etc) - new functionality comes with an update, not with a patch. Just a decision. I read about this somewhere, but I forgot the source, sorry.

With 11.31 each new version is called update release with new functionality. By using update-ux they ensure you have met all the requirements regarding minimum versions of drivers ...

Example:
Virtual machines 3.5 requires hp-ux 11.23 0712 as minimum because of all the driver, provider, ... dependencies. If the core is older, it will not install.

[Rita C Workman]

Duncan & Torsten,

Funny you mention HPVM, funny cause I was going to include them as an exception that should require using update-ux. But as an exception only.
I am aware that patching will only affect the current release of software on the box - hence why you upgrade your software version to a newer version and patch accordingly. Frankly I don't think I care for the idea of update-ux and BANG everything is upgraded. Maybe somethings you want left at an earlier version because of some third party vendor software running on that box that isn't ready for new "BANG" version.

You see when I update the box (O/S) I am old fashioned and I check everything - firmware relations, software versions in relation to other software running and so forth and so forth. Takes me a little longer, but I have never had any application so much as burp when I upgrade. And used the update-ux this last O/S upgarde and I agree it is sooooo much improved.
I really don't think I agree with this approach EXCEPT for those exceptions - like HPVM.

I guess my quesion is going to become - is this an 11.31 new standard methodology, or maybe Itanium standard methodology ........... or maybe HP is just looking at phasing out doing patch roll-outs entirely and replacing it with the ever eternal update your O/S for everything??

What d'ya think?

[Torsten.]

Have a look at my example posted earlier:

http://forums.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?threadId=1241964

Most updated components are drivers and core components. Consider to run update-ux interactive, this let you decide what to exclude from this process.

[Patrick Wallek]

Since I don't have a server running 11iv3/11.31 yet, I haven't had to go through this yet. However, I can see Rita's point. I have always thought of OS "updates" (coming from a pre-11i perspective) as adding functionality for new server models and processors.

Having heard that 11.31 required periodic updates via update-ux I was curious as to the thinking behind this as well.

I can kind of see from HP's perspective where it makes sense, but I can also see Rita's issues with this as well.

>>HP is just looking at phasing out doing
>>patch roll-outs entirely and replacing it
>>with the ever eternal update your O/S for
>>everything??

Now this I could possibly see. If instead of patching **AND** update-ux'ing, you just use update-ux and you have all the latest patches AND product versions in one go. I could possibly get behind that.

[Steven E. Protter]

Shalom Rita,

OT: Thanks for the linkedin invite.

It would appear that HP-UX is moving to a more Linux like model. That lets you use upgrade-ux to update core functionality as you said.

However I don't like the trend. I did the RHEL equivalent of update-ux on a system and ended up with a system that I could not patch.

Yes, Linux now offers the boot off a DVD/CD option to upgrade the OS. It also however supports the concept of using yum, to update the OS in place without a reboot, except in the end to implement the new kernel.

I've done a few 11.31 systems and actually managed to make things work the old way. I did a cold OS install, then some months later, did a QPK, and then installed the applications off the more recent application CD.

I don't trust update-ux and doing a cold install requires a great deal of attention to detail to reintegrate the system into NFS, NIS, Samba and a hundred of other things post install that I don't like to do.

I still think though it takes more work we can make 11.31 work the old way.

My opinion, hope they help.

Why? Well I really don't know but there are some guesses above.

SEP

[Rita C Workman]

Torsten,

Yes, running interactive would give that ability. Sort of doing an O/S upgrade in reverse for certain components .. i.e. upgrade all, except this one and except that one. My concern would be that taking this reverse approach folks might do less checking on being certain versions are what they should be (hopefully not in this shop).

Patrick,

That is sort of what it is starting to look and sound like - patching becoming a thing of the past and from now on just update-ux. I'm a creature of habit - but change is not bad either - this might work. Guess the vote is still out on it - time will tell !
...See you at the next conference, or the one after that - maybe by then other folks companies will spring for it again and we can all get back together!

Rita

[Rita C Workman]

I'm going leave this thread open till tomorrow and then assign points and close..

Thanks,
Rita

[Torsten.]

Just to add - there are still the well known bundles even for 11.31:

HWEnable11i(B.11.31.0903.334d) Hardware Enablement Patches for HP-UX 11i v3, March 2009
FEATURE11i(B.11.31.0903.334c) Feature Enablement Patches for HP-UX 11i v3, March 2009
QPK1131(B.11.31.0903.334a) Quality Pack Depot for 11i v3, March 2009