1. That's kind of a loaded question. 90% bugs where bugs also includes the system is "functioning as designed". Most failures I've encountered, as a partner, occur as a result of the applications heavy reliance on DNS (if configured) and NTP. Would be nice if there was an option to bypass the error and proceed based on host file entries or hardware clock as opposed to outright failing because let's say, there are two different PTR records for the same host or DNS/NTP are down for maintenance (different server group). I get the security/reliability piece of it, but why can't the developers permit the upgrade to complete and present the same "DNS is unreachable/invalid" or "NTP is unreachable" message after the upgrade completes like they any other time of operation?
2. Same amount of planning as I do when upgrades fail, about 8-12 hours. Thanks for asking for feedback. Sent from a mobile device with very tiny touchscreen input keys. Please excude my typtos. > On Aug 23, 2017, at 8:37 AM, Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) <rratl...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > Quick 2 question poll, feel free to unicast or share your response with the > group. > > 1. When you or your customers have a UCM or IMP upgrade fail, what percentage > of failures are due to a bug vs something in the environment (user error, db > updates, etc)? > % bug: > % not a bug: > Yes it’s a very subjective question but that’s ok, use your judgement. > > 2. When an upgrade goes smoothly with no issues, how much time do you put > into the planning and preparation for the upgrade (not the execution)? > > Thanks, > > -Ryan > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-voip mailing list > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip _______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
