How find current MP firmware info for rx2600?

[Stan Sieler]

Hi,

How do I find the current MP firmware info for
an Itanium rx2600?

I've searched the ITRC, but either get too
many hits or no useful ones ("+mp +firmware +rx2600")

I'm currently on 03.30 as reported by the CM "HE" command. (see below)

Simply hearing "that's current" isn't my goal ... my goal is to be
able to determine for myself what is/isn't
current now and in the future.

(so: no points for simply telling me I'm
current or not ok?)

(bonus points for mentioning how to find the
firmware download if (a) it's hard; and (b) I'm not on it :)

And, at logon I get:
Hewlett-Packard Integrated Lights-Out HP Integrity and HP 9000
...
MP Host Name: fred-gsp
Revision E.03.30

thanks!
sieler@allegro.com

[Sameer_Nirmal]

As mentioned on the front page of the ITRC website and the link therein ( http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/ProductRoot.jsp?lang=en&cc=us&taskId=135 ) , drivers and firmware are hosted by
Business Support Center i.e. http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/Home.jsp

Just put the product name/number i.e rx2600 in the serach products. Select the product for which you want drivers/firmware. Select the appropriate OS and you would get the list of drivers/firmware for download.

Firmware are usually OS independent unless otherwise stated.

[Torsten.]

It is current, but you know this already.

To find firmware, I use to go to

http://www.hp.com/go/bsc

-> Download drivers and software

-> HP Integrity servers

-> HP Integrity rx2600 Servers

-> Cross operating system (BIOS, Firmware, Diagnostics, etc.)

-> Firmware - System (ISO image/EFI tool)

Or you select the HP-UX version to get the patch.

[Stan Sieler]

Re:
http://www.hp.com/go/bsc
-> Download drivers and software
...-> Firmware - System (ISO image/EFI tool)

When I said I searched for it, I should
have claried...I also did the above,
with no success. The file you find
there is:

MP Firmware Update 02.31B (ISO Image)
25 Jan 2007

Now, I'm not sure how HP counts, but for
me "03.30" is somewhat later than "02.31B".

Humor aside, the user has no way of knowing
if "02.31B" is the version of the package containing various kinds of firmware (CPU and
MP and ?), each of which has a separate (and different) version number, or if all the
embedded firmwares are version 02.31B.

In short, you didn't try your answer.

You may be beginning to see: it realllllly
is hard to find out what firmware level
I should be on!

thanks anyway,
Stan

[Stan Sieler]

For the benefit of future searchers...

Package 02.31B has:

System [CPU firmware] 02.31

BMC 01.53

iLO MP E.03.30

However, one shouldn't have to download and
unpack it to find out :)

Page at:
http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/SoftwareIndex.jsp?lang=en&cc=us&prodNameId=88839&prodTypeId=15351&prodSeriesId=447335&swLang=13&taskId=135&swEnvOID=54

Ok, someone is bound to say it, so I will:
It isn't obvious to the user, and it DOES NOT
SHOW UP IN AN ITRC SEARCH, but if you click
on "description" for the 02.31B package,
and then "release notes" tab, *then* you'll
see: System 02.31, BMC 01.53, and iLO MP E.03.30. Whew!

BTW, a different area of the download
page (URL above) is *titled* "Management Processor",
and lists E.03.15 (ISO Image)
7 Jul 2005 as the most recent :(
...that really confuses users...why should
they look past that to the nondescript
02.31B package, when this area is *called*
Management Processor? !!

here's hoping that someone(s) in HP will
work to get this fixed.

thanks,
Stan


P

[Torsten.]

"Now, I'm not sure how HP counts, but for
me "03.30" is somewhat later than "02.31B"."

It is not the same.

E.03.30 is the MP firmware
02.31 is the system firmware.

I agree, this is confusing and hard to find.

Try to run

MP:CM> sysrev

to see your installed version.

Somebody told me, HP made the decision to provide only bundles in the future, no "stand-alone" firmware for the MP to ensure the combination fit always.

Please don't ask me about my opinion on this - I didn't made it

:-/

[Stan Sieler]

Re: Try to run
MP:CM> sysrev

That reports what I have, of course:
MP FW : E.03.30
BMC FW : 01.53
EFI FW : 01.22
System FW : 02.31

I've posted to the HP-UX developers
list asking "is there a way to get SYSREV
information "online" ... without have a program
telnet to the LAN console, logon, send
"CM", "sysrev" and parsing
the text output :)

But, that's a different thread!
(Anyone with an answer is welcome to email
me, however :)

thanks,

Stan
sieler@allegro.com

[Torsten. · Accepted solution]

There is a tool, that delivers the result more or less.

It is

/usr/contrib/bin/machinfo

but it doesn't know about the MP.
The only way to get the MP fw is to connect to the MP

:-|

[Stan Sieler]

Thanks, I'd forgotten about machinfo...
it shows:

Firmware revision = 02.31
FP SWA driver revision: 1.18
IPMI is supported on this system.
BMC version: 1.53

so it lacks the MP and EFI firmware info,
but does have other interesting stuff in it.

Stan

[Torsten.]

EFI is always part of the system firmware so far. I have never seen another version than 1.22 yet.

I can tell you what makes the search worst.
If I go through ITRC to the BSC, the system pre-selects the language to german for me.

As a result, the list doesn't show HP-UX and firmware independent entries at all, because it is only available in english.

It is really not perfect.

Another possibility to get information about the system is to use the web-interface of the MP. Nice colorful, some users will like it I guess.


But some time ago I found a advantage in the machinfo command - at least in 11.31 it works on PA-RISC systems too with similar results.

[Torsten.]

And BTW, you gave 2 points to Sameer and me for the first posts - this usually means a poor solution.

But it is the best solution currently available. Don't blame us for this.

We are users like you, trying to help you and others.

[Stan Sieler]

Torsten writes: "And BTW, you gave 2 points to Sameer and me for the first posts - this usually means a poor solution."

Simple...the first two posts clearly
did not answer the question.

Neither said "this is how
to determine the current firmware version
that's available".

Both pointed to *obtaining* the firmware,
instead of saying "go here and click there to find the answer". It wasn't until I investigated further and pointed out how to actually determine the current firmware version that the information
was posted (by me, but the question author
can't give himself points :)

(The main reason I gave any points to those two is that I'd erred in not mentioning in the original post that I'd found/seen that page.)

Torsten also wrote: "But it is the best solution currently available. Don't blame us for this."

If "you" work for HP, then I can
hope that you'll observe the HP Way and
help prod the correct people into solving
the problem.

If "you" don't work for HP, then I can
still hope that you join with me in badgering
HP to fix an obvious problem :)

But giving 2 points for a non-answering response isn't blame, it's being generous!

Awarding points places me in an awkward
position ... do I reward effort or results?

I'd phrased my initial post in an attempt
to elicit results (i.e., to avoid well meaning but not-answering posts). Since I
failed to post all relevant background
information (that I visited that page), I relented and rewarded effort (although not to the level I'd have rewarded results).

I've helped people over the net and web for
decades ... and I realize that most
people post questions without sufficient
information. You can't tell if they researched the problem first, or if they're
even describing the true problem. Similarly,
I've seen people respond with replies that
were obviously wrong (and never tried/tested). I think I was disappointed
that no posts other than mine had the answer :)

Still, tell you what, I'll assign you points
for this most recent post of yours (since it
made me think more about rewarding effort),
and if Sameer posts again on the thread, I'll
do the same for him. (It Sure Would Be Nice
if I could click on his name and send him
a message.)

thanks,

Stan

[Stan Sieler]

Torsten writes: "And BTW, you gave 2 points to Sameer and me for the first posts - this usually means a poor solution."

Simple...the first two posts clearly
did not answer the question.

Neither said "this is how
to determine the current firmware version
that's available".

Both pointed to *obtaining* the firmware,
instead of saying "go here and click there to find the answer". It wasn't until I investigated further and pointed out how to actually determine the current firmware version that the information
was posted (by me, but the question author
can't give himself points :)

(The main reason I gave any points to those two is that I'd erred in not mentioning in the original post that I'd found/seen that page.)

Torsten also wrote: "But it is the best solution currently available. Don't blame us for this."

If "you" work for HP, then I can
hope that you'll observe the HP Way and
help prod the correct people into solving
the problem.

If "you" don't work for HP, then I can
still hope that you join with me in badgering
HP to fix an obvious problem :)

But giving 2 points for a non-answering response isn't blame, it's being generous!

Awarding points places me in an awkward
position ... do I reward effort or results?

I'd phrased my initial post in an attempt
to elicit results (i.e., to avoid well meaning but not-answering posts). Since I
failed to post all relevant background
information (that I visited that page), I relented and rewarded effort (although not to the level I'd have rewarded results).

I've helped people over the net and web for
decades ... and I realize that most
people post questions without sufficient
information. You can't tell if they researched the problem first, or if they're
even describing the true problem. Similarly,
I've seen people respond with replies that
were obviously wrong (and never tried/tested). I think I was disappointed
that no posts other than mine had the answer :)

Still, tell you what, I'll assign you points
for this most recent post of yours (since it
made me think more about rewarding effort),
and if Sameer posts again on the thread, I'll
do the same for him. (It Sure Would Be Nice
if I could click on his name and send him
a message.)

BTW, for several days I've had to click
"submit" twice ... the first time I get
"failed to post reply", and the second time
it works. (Similarly for awarding points, I've had to do it twice.)

thanks,

Stan

[Stan Sieler]

Sigh...today I got the "failed to submit",
so I resubmitted, and now I see my post
got in there twice.

Some days you just can't win :)