HPUX releases and dependencies

[Tim Nelson]

I have noticed lately that HP is shipping software updates with dependancies on HPUX maintenance releases.

For example:
Just go the latest IVM 3.5 for 11iv2. The release notes state a dependency on HPUX 11iv2 December 2007.

Now we all know executing version "updates" on HPUX is not reliable, (Prefered method is cold install), so what is the plan here ?

Can anyone give input on the reasoning for this or at least put my mind at ease. I am "scared" of OS version updates but now seemed to be locked in a situation of not keeping a sw product up to date.

Any comments or show me the light would be appreciated.

Tim

[Steven E. Protter]

Shalom,

If you take for example a system installed with September 2005 release of the OS and install the December 2007 bi-annual patch set, it is as if you did a cold install of December 2007 Core OS release.

So its a version update from all practical purposes.

SEP

[Tim Nelson]

SEP,

I do not disagree with your statement but, applying bundled patch sets has always been reliable vs running update which in my experience is only maybe 30% reliable.

Your experiences ?

[Torsten.]

Hi Tim,

I would "update" the system using update-ux anyway.
Within a version like 11.23 it should work.

But I would use DRD (Dynamic root disk) together with this.

My theory:

Clone the system to another disk by using
# drd clone ...

Now either update the clone or the original.

Test the updated system.

If something goes wrong, you can either boot the clone or the unmodified original.

I already used drd and I really like it, but I did not yet use it with update-ux.

[Tim Nelson]

Thanks Torsten,

A keywords in your statement.

"should work"

My last experience with updating 11.23 from a previous media to June 2007. One server worked, the other two were left unusable, 1 failed in mid update during kernel build. The other failed while asking for CD#2.

All three were clones of each other on IVM.

I certainly would create the same safeguards as I would for patch bundles but back to the reliability issue.

[Torsten.]

I did this only once in the past without any problems.
IMHO the advantage was to update all the drivers, products ... in one go.

I did not try this with drd yet, but I did patching with this product.

Do you know DRD?

You can clone the system image to another disk and patch the "cold standby" online.

If you have a scheduled downtime, you can activate the clone and boot.

If it doesn't work, you can boot the original - it stays unmodified.

If it works, you can use the clone as your original.

[Tim Nelson]

Torsten,

No I have not used the DRD options yet.

In this specific case for an updated version of IVM I am looking at having to execute the same on 3 IVM Hosts and 21 IVM Guests.

I guess "some day" I will have to start testing / practicing.

The big note in this case with IVM is that I cannot update IVM without updating to the Dec 2007 HPUX 11iv2.

I still am questioning what seems to be a new HP methodology of product dependencies to HPUX date releases vs simple patch dependencies.

A huge bummer in my mind.

Thanks again for the inputs.

Tim

[Torsten.]

IMHO the requirement for the Dec 2007 HPUX 11iv2 release was made to ensure all needed products/drivers ... etc. are there and up-to-date.

I'm surprised how many things are new or updated:

What is New in the December 2007 Release?
http://docs.hp.com/en/5992-1968/ch03s02.html

[Wim Rombauts]

I think you are misinterpreting the version dependencies. "Upgrading" from HP-UX 11iv2 September 2005 to HP-UX 11i v2 December 2007 is more like a patchset installation : The Core-OS is not changed, only additional software modules, new hardware drivers, patches which enable the core-os to accept new hardware, new or improved functionality, ... but the core of the OS is still the very same HP-UX 11i v2.
This is something completely different than - for instance - upgrading HP-UX 11i v2 to HP-UX 11i v3.
So yes, it is a reliable procedure. I have done it before on my systems, and I will do it again the first time I need such additional functionality.

[Tim Nelson]

Thanks Wim,

Maybe your explanation is what I am really looking for .

To refresh my memory, updating from 11iv2 June 2007 to 11iv2 Dec 2007 uses the "up-date" procedure right, not a straight swinstall like patches, correct ?

Hence my apprehension with "up-date".

I guess the only way I will become secure is to execute this update a large number of times in test..

Thanks all !! Your experiences are greatly appreciated.

Tim