Hello Ed
I am basing this comment (as you detailed below) on a discussion with
Symantec. that is not to say its right, but I know after the huge
cock-ups there were with 6.x one of their focus points was an easier
transition from 5.x to 6.5 or 6.5.1
Of course, alot would depend on the environment, and also the stability
of that environment. I guess one small fault can cause an endless amount
of headaches and quite possible downtime for your NetBackup environment.
Having Symantec on the end of the phone could be a good thing....
depending on their expertise me thinks.
In regards to the second comment (see below in blue), I did respond to
this in another thread of the same subject line.
Hopefully this is clear.
Thanks, Simon
________________________________
From: Ed Wilts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:56 PM
To: WEAVER, Simon (external)
Cc: Jeff Lightner; Tony T.; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Lets hear about your upgrade experience! 5.x -
6.5
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:33 AM, WEAVER, Simon (external)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it seems that going from 5.1 to 6.5 or even 6.5.1 should be the
easier upgrade path.
What are you basing this on? The 6.0 to 6.5 upgrade has been relatively
painless for everybody. It's always been the 5.x to 6.0 upgrade that
has been the issue and the steps to do that are in the 5.1 to 6.5 path -
you can't avoid the migration by skipping 6.0.
In general, the uglier the source environment in 5.1, the uglier the
migration, and it hasn't always been the admin's fault (although
sometimes it has been). Some things worked in earlier releases but were
never really documented or supported and NetBackup is not unique in
this. The more complex the product is, the uglier upgrades are going to
be since there are too many input permutations to even consider testing.
There are lots of environments out there where Symantec just says "we
didn't know anybody was even doing *that*" or "we didn't even know you
*could* do that".
If the source environment would have been bugfree since it was
installed, it would be easier, but it wasn't - all releases that I've
worked on, going back to 3.4 had some set of bugs that would leave the
system in weird and wonderful states. That makes the upgrade even
harder since they can't just trust that the source system was pristine.
It also doesn't help that sometimes the upgrade processes themselves
have bugs.
> maybe careful planning is the key?
Careful planning is always key but this alone doesn't guarantee a
successful outcome. Part of the planning, however, should include a
fall back plan...
.../Ed
--
Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or
privileged information or information otherwise protected from disclosure.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately, do not copy this message or any attachments and do not use it
for any purpose or disclose its content to any person, but delete this
message and any attachments from your system. Astrium disclaims any and all
liability if this email transmission was virus corrupted, altered or
falsified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259
REGISTERED OFFICE:-
Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
