| **
Warren, I am curious, how customized was this system when you started the upgrade? Being that ITSM, CORE, SRM, and SLM are structurally so different in 9.x from 7.6.4
(things are in very different places and some process workflow is completely different) I would think you would have found it necessary to review each customization to see where it fits in now or if it was still needed. I have done a few of these and I came
to the conclusion that with significantly customized systems it’s easier and more accurate to do a gap analysis, develop requirements and then port your overlaid (hopefully overlaid lol) customizations over. So in essence you are creating fresh installs and
just bringing over the customizations that still make sense, both from a process concept and real estate concept. I also assume that the customizations and setup of the 7.6.4 system were done strictly adhering to our standardized best practices (i.e not using
default DB IDs when the custom items were built)? It will also be interesting to see how stability goes over the next several months. I mean the concept of overlays was created so you can do upgrades instead of a whole new system every time exactly as you and the document you referenced spell
it out, it’s just 7.6.4 to 9.x is an enormous jump. I prefer doing this one last “New” system and then from there don’t wait umpteen years to upgrade. Start doing them with each major release -1. By the way I remember seeing something about User permission issues you had somewhere in the thread. Are you using dynamic groups? 9.0 at least is buggy about
dynamic groups. I forget the exact issue but the 9.0 document mentions issues with mixing group types. I ran into the same problem and had to recreate my dynamic groups. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG]
On Behalf Of Warren R. Baltimore II ** We went the upgrade route. We upgraded ARS, ATRIUM Core, ITSM, SRM, SLM and Process Designer as well as 3 mid tier servers. On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Daniel Wu <danielwu@cox.net> wrote: ** Hi Warren, I am curious when you "upgrade" to version 9. Did you really go through the upgrade steps or you went new instance and cut over? I ask this because we are also consider version 9. We are on 7.6.04. ** Thanks for the replies everyone! Sorry I didn't get back sooner. I spent quite a long time on the phone yesterday with Dolly from BMC. What we discovered was that while my email servers were coming up, the primary was not moving into an Active State, instead they were all
in a Waiting state. We manually moved them to Active, and the primary one started functioning. We then made a change to the server and restarted the service, and it went back to waiting. Dolly has my log files and is working with Engineering to find out what the cause might be. In the meantime, I know now what is wrong and can
take some easy steps to ensure it stays up and running until we find out how to fix the issue. On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:36 AM, Walunjkar, Parshuram <Parshuram_Walunjkar@bmc.com> wrote: ** Warren, By looking your logs your email engine is up and running correctly.
After 9.0 all Email Engines are running in server group env, and following the service
failover i.e sharing email engine load among them. You can follow the docs for more information about service failover. https://docs.bmc.com/docs/display/public/ars9000/Email+engine+service+failover+in+a+server+group let me know if you required any help. Hope this will help you. --Parshram From: Action Request System discussion
list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG]
On Behalf Of Warren R. Baltimore II **
First, the technical stuff. AREmail is running on a MS Server 2008 SP2 (Virtual) We upgraded from ARS 7.6.04 to 9.0.01 in a 3 app server environment. Email is only currently running on one of the 3 app servers Java JRE is 8u66 The Email service comes up, and the email log and email.lck file is created... And then nothing. We've checked the email_daemon.properties file, and it looks good. Here is the log file. I've removed the domain name and rmi port for security reasons. Any help you can provide would be most appreciated. We're supposed to go live this afternoon, and we have to get email up! --
Warren R. Baltimore II _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_
_ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_
Warren R. Baltimore II _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_
_ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_
Warren R. Baltimore II _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_
|