Ø but 20% more time? if you are running a GUI interface - To clarify, that's not 20% more time of you sitting at the screen. The goal is for you to sit at the screen for less time, press a button, and walk away. However, to point #1 (and your follow-up), the more automated work that we do to ensure that the installation/upgrade is successful (including post-install checks), the more time would be spent by the system itself doing the upgrade. The human doesn't have to participate more, but the computer needs to do more work to ensure that the human doesn't have to participate more. So the overall upgrade time from end-to-end could be increased, but the chance of success - and thus not having to do it over - would increased by a larger percentage.
-David J. Easter Manager of Product Management, Remedy Platform BMC Software, Inc. The opinions, statements, and/or suggested courses of action expressed in this E-mail do not necessarily reflect those of BMC Software, Inc. My voluntary participation in this forum is not intended to convey a role as a spokesperson, liaison or public relations representative for BMC Software, Inc. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of patrick zandi Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 11:07 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ARS 7.6.04 -- Installers (in general) ** The areas that we do need to improve would therefore be more around: 1. Ensuring that the installation runs successfully. Our perception is that a customer would be willing to wait an additional 20% longer for an install to complete if they had a near 100% chance of success. In other words, it's better to have one successful install take 8 hours than it is to have to redo a 4 hour install 3 times. Super Successful is always a great idea.. but 20% more time? if you are running a GUI interface -- that has to projected across a WAN/ LAN in Xwin that is a bit tedious. I personally do not care for the GUI at all.. but if it was a Text screen that would be better with and occasional ...Working ---- Installing X.... Installing Y... Configuring ... I actually need to do the silent install.. really... even if it was not pretty.. but worked .... IF the GUI is interrupted (HOT to me) I can start where I left off.. or nearby.. as stated below.. power goes out, boxes reboot ... This is admin, not customer interface... IMHO 2. Ensure that if there is a failure, that the system immediately identifies it as a fatal situation either to the product being installed or a product to be installed in the future. YES! : if a failure ask for the user to do something in pause mode... Like open a firewall port/ check oracle connection, I like it. 3. In addition, if there is a failure, enable the install to continue from near to the point it failed rather than having to start over from scratch. YES ! Assuming that these are addressed - would you still desire to have individual installers for all the products in a solution? Or would addressing the above remove the need for your granular "baby-sitting" of the install and thus enable you to press the 'go' button and walk away. YES! and I never requested or had the idea that the installed needs to be divided.. all one size is fine.. I mean some might want is smaller due to FTP up to the host, and sometimes X 2 to get it there is a hassle.. Is there anything else around the installer that would be critical on your list of needs to have full confidence in the installer - both for fresh installs and for upgrades? you could run a Verifier that says "Yes" --- the core is installed correctly (x, y, z, or even fine grain)... I do not care if the verifier is separate or not.. THANK YOU !!! -- Patrick Zandi _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
