X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Received: by onstor-exch02.onstor.net 
	id <01C75237.8D6296E2@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>; Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:01:35 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: corruption and upgrade workflow for Lambo [and 1.3.3.?]
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:01:35 -0700
Message-ID: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0138C465@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070216142730.10a7902b@ripper.onstor.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: corruption and upgrade workflow for Lambo [and 1.3.3.?]
Thread-Index: AcdSGaXYBWOnCb5mQnqClACthY0LzwAHYBdA
From: "Chris Vandever" <chris.vandever@onstor.com>
To: "Andy Sharp" <andy.sharp@onstor.com>,
	"Tim Gardner" <tim.gardner@onstor.com>
Cc: "Caeli Collins" <caeli.collins@onstor.com>,
	"Eric Barrett" <eric.barrett@onstor.com>,
	"Ed Kwan" <ed.kwan@onstor.com>,
	"Jay Michlin" <jay.michlin@onstor.com>,
	"Larry Scheer" <larry.scheer@onstor.com>,
	"Paul Hammer" <paul.hammer@onstor.com>,
	"dl-Software" <dl-software@onstor.com>

My understanding was that the number of files that fail the compare is
small in comparison with the total number of files that need to be
upgraded, thus the second upgrade should get everything remaining
without any problem.

ChrisV

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Sharp=20
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 2:28 PM
To: Tim Gardner
Cc: Caeli Collins; Eric Barrett; Ed Kwan; Jay Michlin; Larry Scheer;
Paul Hammer; dl-Software
Subject: Re: corruption and upgrade workflow for Lambo [and 1.3.3.?]


On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:19:32 -0800 "Tim Gardner"
<tim.gardner@onstor.com> wrote:

> The documented procedure is to upgrade the secondary flash, run a
> system compare, and if=20
> corrupted files are found, upgrade again. Once you have a successful
> compare, reboot from the secondary flash.=20

What I'm concerned about is that the 'upgrade again' is still the
corruption prone upgrade process.  It is quite possible, I might even
hazard a 'likely', that a user will have to execute that loop many
times before chancing on a lucky upgrade that doesn't corrupt anything.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Sharp=20
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 1:19 PM
> To: Caeli Collins; Eric Barrett; Ed Kwan; Jay Michlin; Tim Gardner;
> Larry Scheer; Paul Hammer; dl-Software
> Subject: corruption and upgrade workflow for Lambo [and 1.3.3.?]
>=20
> Howdy,
>=20
> Since I've been messing about with the upgrade code a bunch for
> Delorean, I've been doing a lot of upgrades in the past several days
> in the process of doing unit testing, and one thing I've noticed is
> that upgrades from 1.3.3 to 2.2 or later always find several files
> that are corrupted after the upgrade.
>=20
> This is because the upgrade process has a corruption problem, as we
> all know, which was fixed in 2.2 (and possibly some version of
> 1.3.3?). However, when you upgrade to 2.2 you use the old, corruption
> prone, upgrade process.
>=20
> Therefore, I believe the workflow for upgrading from a
> non-upgrade-fixed release to a fixed release requires that you
> actually upgrade twice.  You must be running the new version when you
> upgrade the second time.  So, for the sake of brevity, I will just
> mention 1.3.3 -> 2.2+ in the following:
>=20
> 1.  Upgrade from 1.3.3 or 2.1 to 2.2
> 2.  Boot 2.2
> 	Note: you may have problems at this point, since any file
> could conceivably be corrupted, including one of the .bin boot images
> 	for the TXRX or FP processors.  If necessary, log in quickly
> 	after rebooting and kill pm in order to keep the system from
> 	rebooting itself before you can execute the next step.
> 3.  Upgrade to 2.2 again.  You may use the same tar ball you did in
>     step 1.
>=20
> Please set aside a decent amount of time for this: upgrades in 2.2 are
> not fast.  It downloads the tarball twice and verifies the entire
> system twice for each upgrade.  I am fixing these issues in Delorean
> so we won't have to live with this for too terribly long.
>=20
> Cheers,
>=20
> a
