C.50.00 UPDATE ISSUES
 
After going through the C.50.00 update process I have the following observations
and suggestions for HP:
 
If you are running a system version older than 4.0 you must perform two updates.
One to get to 4.0 and the next to get to 5.0. This in effect will orphan many sites
currently running 2.2 or 3.0 they simply will not make the effort. This is a
potential time bomb for HP and other HP3000 software vendors because it eventually
will become politically and technically easier to convert to a new platform than to
catch up on versions.
 
Could anyone at HP shed some light on this prerequisite and is it a future trend?
If this is the methodology for future versions then it adds to the list of reasons
to have user volumes to eliminate the possibility of a double update. ( A REINSTALL
does not involve user volume data )
 
The documentation has some major flaws and conflicts. Obviously no one at HP
actually experienced the process of updating from the package distributed to the
installed base. Including five different memos strongly indicates the level of
confusion that surrounds this release.
 
The memo regarding password protection of Hardware Diagnostics states that in the
5.0 version the tape diagnostics will be password. The installation instructions
specifically direct the user to run tape diagnostics to verify the current firmware
version. While this isn't a current problem it certainly sends a mixed message.
 
These same tape diagnostics are invaluable for determining the usage and error
rates of the DAT tapes. If you are not presently validating your DAT tapes using
these diagnostics especially the SLT tapes that the update  process generates you
are begging for trouble. The same goes for the disc diagnostics. The system volume
set discs should be checked for errors prior to attempting an update or
installation.
 
My recommendation for HP is to supply a standalone version of the these diagnostics
that can validate the devices and display the usage and error logs.
 
I know some HP types will say "BUT THAT'S WHAT PREDICTIVE IS FOR!". Many sites
don't run predictive for various reasons but chiefly because the configuration is
not updated.
 
Both the update and installation directions left out the step to perform a START
NORECOVERY after the UPDATE from the SLT that AUTOINSTALL built. This is a small
omission, but it is at a very critical step.
 
Another recommendation for HP is to have the installation instructions tested step
by step before distribution. An enhancement to this recommendation would be to
eliminate the preprinted instructions and have a smarter install process like HPUX
has. At a minimum I would like to see a program that configures the instructions
based on the current system configuration and versions. This would save an enormous
amount of money in printing and mailing expenses. It would also increase the
likelihood that the site may update to this new version.
 
Finally, regarding the memo "Obtaining security information and patches". Why
aren't all patches made available via BBS or FTP. This would greatly increase the
efficiency of the response center and the timeliness of patches. I know in my
response center experience it was much more interesting to work on real problems
than to play post office for patches.
 
********** __                __  * *                              **********
********* / /               / / ** **   Michael Hornsby            *********
******** / /               / / *** ***                              ********
******* / /___  _____ ____/ / **** ****   Beechglen Development Inc. *******
****** / __  // __  // __  / ***** *****   5576 Glenway Avenue        ******
***** / /_/ // /_/ // /_/ / ****** ******   Cincinnati, Ohio 45238     *****
**** /_____//___  //_____/ ******* *******   Phone:(513) 922-0509       ****
***        __  / /        ******** ********   Fax:(513) 347-2834509      ***
**        / /_/ /        ********* *********   Net: [log in to unmask]  **
*        /_____/        ********** **********                              *