Supplement SPP naming mess by HPE

[pirx]

As regular SPPs are only released by HPE few times a year, I usually take the provided SPP + Supplements ISO in OneView/vLCM. On the SPP download side there are now:

Existing Base SPPs:

Gen10 SPP 2023.09.00.00 with file P64606_001_gen10spp-2023.09.00.00-SPP2023090000.2023_0902.19.iso 

Gen 11 SPP 2023.10.00.00 with file P69219_001_gen11spp-2023.10.00.00-Gen11SPP2023100000.2023_1020.38.iso

Here you can clearly see for which server generation Gen10/11 the patch bundel is.

SPP + Supplements

Gen11 SPP 2023.10.00.00 + Patch Bundle 1 with file bp-Convenience-download-2023.10-00.01-655d9b5a7624f40497765949.iso

Gen10 SPP 2023.09.00.00 + Patch Bundle 2 with file bp-Convenience-download-2023.09-00.02-655da3647624f4049776594a.iso

In the Supplement releases the server generations are not visible anymore in the filename. But in OV/vLCM its even worse, you can not see anymore which baseline is for what server generation. Basicially you have to know which version number is for what server generation. Is anyone at HPE testing this or working with this at all? Why are the Supplements named so differently as the base SPPs? Why not create them with meaningful information? It's a little thing but it shows that this is done without any idea how this late looks like in applications like OV/vLCM.

Gen11 Base SPP can clearly be identified, the Supplement SPPs not

There was not even any useful description added to Supplements

vSphere HSM setup

vLCM and patch setup. Again,

[SydUmar_1]

Hello pirx,

As the Supplement downloads are available under the respective Generation SPP downloads, we will have to rename the downloaded supplement file so that it can be easily identified while its being deployed. This is how it has always been with the Supplement downloads. Apart from this, there are no other workarounds available for the same. We could possibly share this as feedback to the backend team as an enhancement request. 

[pirx]

This is how it has always been with the Supplement downloads

 Not sure if this a good reason to keep the mess. 

we will have to rename the downloaded supplement file so that it can be easily identified while its being deployed. 

But this is _not_ the case. Did you look at my screenshots? Where can you identify for which genaration the Supplement SPP is? Right, nowhere. You have imported 2 SPPs with identical name (Custom Baseline 2023 11 22). Where the org baselines had the generation (Gen10/Gen11) in the name. Only way to identify Supp SPP is by knowing the version number x is GenX and y is GenY. And I also don't think that there is any technical reason to not at least add a proper description to the Supplement SPP.  Just adding "Custom Baseline" to the description is a joke! 

Telling customers that it is as it is... is just s slap in the customers face.

[SydUmar_1]

Please log a support ticket with us on HPE Support portal to take this issue up - https://support.hpe.com/connect/s/?card=dcm 

[pirx]

I'd really appriciate that someone from HPE takes this to R&D as feature request, I don't see any reason  for a support case. I didn't get any of my OV issues solved there, I don't see that I get far with a feature request.

[Brian Markussen]

Have you found a fix for this issue?

[pirx]

No, and there is no way that I can find a solution. This has to be fixed by HPE as the patch releases are provided by HPE. Latest SPP patch releases look the same. Nobody bothers to add a meaningful description or anything that make them distinguishable. And I do not expect that this will be fixed this century.

In OV, still no information what this Supplement SPP is for (Gen10 or Gen11 or...)

In vLCM / Repository you also can just guess for which server generation the Supplement SPP is

[TKop]

Agreed that the naming could be better, for the bundle name to be something like "Gen11 SPP + Patch Bundle 1" and then a description that at least indicates what makes up the bundle (e.g. base version used + any patches).  Further, it would be helpful too for the filename to add the generation.  This feedback has been passed along to the SPP team to look into.

[pirx]

@TKop A follow up, I just updated to OV4VC and vLCM shows now an new image recommendation.  Problem is, recommendation included the Gen10 as well as Gen11 Firmware and Drivers Addon. 

Now with the names and information of the SPP its completely impossible to see for which Gen it is.

[pirx]

@TKop Sadly there was 0 improvement in the last half year. The patch bundles provided by HPE still conatin 0 information about the server generation. This makes it incredible hard an error prone to configure then in VMware vLCM image baselines. The base SPPs always have the GenXY generation in the desciption.

[TKop]

@pirx there are changes in now that I can see on the custom SPP page and it is currently for the new stuff going forward.  The 2024.04.00.00 was just recently made available on the page and OV is showing the improved SPP naming for the convenience bundle:

[pirx]

@TKop But the base SPP always contained the type/generation in the name and description. And 2024.04 is a new base SPP. What you compare in your screenshot is exactly what I'm compaining about (check my inital post). Base SPPs.... good, HPE Patch Baselines.... boooohhhh. Sure, it's possible that this changes from 2024.04 onwards, I just don't see it in your screenshot.

[TKop]

@pirx that is a convenience bundle and not a base since pensado is added on.  Here's the repository view in OV showing the filenames.  Base SPPs have different filenames that do not include "bp-Convenience-download..."  

[pirx]

@TKop Is this a custom bundle that you created? Because neither for Gen10 not Gen11 there is a predefined HPE patch bundle yet avaialble. Those were the only ones I've used in the past.

[RenjuCR]

These changes will be applicable to Customized SPP and new versions of Convenience bundles i.e starting from FY24. Otherwise we have a challenge in rebuilding already released ones.

[pirx]

@RenjuCR  if this is the case, then it's great improvement!

[RenjuCR]

Thank you.

[TKop]

@pirx it wasn't a custom bundle but another type of convenience bundle available from the custom SPP portal.  It is another flavor like the patch bundle you mention, but instead of the patch bundle piece, there is a pensando bundle added on.  IOW not Base + Patch bundle but Base + Pensando bundle.  These both have the same approach and thus why I showed to give the new example.  As @RenjuCR  noted, it will further be present as patches come along.  Hope that helps!