Problem with Migrator
Here's a heads-up for those of you ahem trusting ahem enough to use Migrator to move your code about: I did a small migration this morning of just a few dozen forms (no data, no workflow). Migrator 7.0.1 p4 - Server 7.0.1 p2 on source server, 7.0.1 p4 on destination server. All of the forms were migrated, but when I ran a difference report immediately afterward, on three of the forms (1 Regular, 2 D.O.), some of the group permissions were not migrated successfully on some (not all) of the fields. Since the group is one of the core ITSM groups (General Access), which does exist with the same ID on both the source and destination servers, I think this is kind of a problem. We'll see if Support can help, but this is really an engineering issue. I can't wait for BMC to give us a migration tool I can trust. -- Rick Cook ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:Where the Answers Are
Re: Problem with Migrator
ahem what do you want for all that cash! ahem They would do better just to admit defeat.. Engineering has no ability to make a good migration tool.. They just cannot do it.. -- Oh, you could try 7.1 but it is probably not compatible with anything but future versions.. I know you cannot use 6.X with 5.X or 7.X with 5.X either.. I have so much faith in the 7.1 migrator.. I have not even looked at it.. yet I pay for it.. On 9/10/07, Rick Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ** Here's a heads-up for those of you ahem trusting ahem enough to use Migrator to move your code about: I did a small migration this morning of just a few dozen forms (no data, no workflow). Migrator 7.0.1 p4 - Server 7.0.1 p2 on source server, 7.0.1p4 on destination server. All of the forms were migrated, but when I ran a difference report immediately afterward, on three of the forms (1 Regular, 2 D.O.), some of the group permissions were not migrated successfully on some (not all) of the fields. Since the group is one of the core ITSM groups (General Access), which does exist with the same ID on both the source and destination servers, I think this is kind of a problem. We'll see if Support can help, but this is really an engineering issue. I can't wait for BMC to give us a migration tool I can trust. -- Rick Cook __20060125___This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ -- Patrick Zandi ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:Where the Answers Are
Re: Problem with Migrator
Doesn't General Access have the same ID irrespective? I thought that when these application groups are created they get created with the same ID across any server.. Is that not true? Joe -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 7:10 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Problem with Migrator ** Here's a heads-up for those of you ahem trusting ahem enough to use Migrator to move your code about: I did a small migration this morning of just a few dozen forms (no data, no workflow). Migrator 7.0.1 p4 - Server 7.0.1 p2 on source server, 7.0.1 p4 on destination server. All of the forms were migrated, but when I ran a difference report immediately afterward, on three of the forms (1 Regular, 2 D.O.), some of the group permissions were not migrated successfully on some (not all) of the fields. Since the group is one of the core ITSM groups (General Access), which does exist with the same ID on both the source and destination servers, I think this is kind of a problem. We'll see if Support can help, but this is really an engineering issue. I can't wait for BMC to give us a migration tool I can trust. -- Rick Cook No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.14/999 - Release Date: 9/10/2007 5:43 PM ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:Where the Answers Are
Re: Problem with Migrator
Yes, it is true. Everybody but Migrator seems to have that concept well in hand... Rick On 9/10/07, Joe D'Souza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ** Doesn't General Access have the same ID irrespective? I thought that when these application groups are created they get created with the same ID across any server.. Is that not true? Joe -Original Message- *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of *Rick Cook *Sent:* Monday, September 10, 2007 7:10 PM *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG *Subject:* Problem with Migrator ** Here's a heads-up for those of you ahem trusting ahem enough to use Migrator to move your code about: I did a small migration this morning of just a few dozen forms (no data, no workflow). Migrator 7.0.1 p4 - Server 7.0.1 p2 on source server, 7.0.1p4 on destination server. All of the forms were migrated, but when I ran a difference report immediately afterward, on three of the forms (1 Regular, 2 D.O.), some of the group permissions were not migrated successfully on some (not all) of the fields. Since the group is one of the core ITSM groups (General Access), which does exist with the same ID on both the source and destination servers, I think this is kind of a problem. We'll see if Support can help, but this is really an engineering issue. I can't wait for BMC to give us a migration tool I can trust. -- Rick Cook ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:Where the Answers Are
Re: Problem with Migrator
So what happens when you use it, it just randomly skips some permissions or is there some sort of a pattern? Joe -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 7:28 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Problem with Migrator ** Yes, it is true. Everybody but Migrator seems to have that concept well in hand... Rick On 9/10/07, Joe D'Souza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ** Doesn't General Access have the same ID irrespective? I thought that when these application groups are created they get created with the same ID across any server.. Is that not true? Joe -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 7:10 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Problem with Migrator ** Here's a heads-up for those of you ahem trusting ahem enough to use Migrator to move your code about: I did a small migration this morning of just a few dozen forms (no data, no workflow). Migrator 7.0.1 p4 - Server 7.0.1 p2 on source server, 7.0.1 p4 on destination server. All of the forms were migrated, but when I ran a difference report immediately afterward, on three of the forms (1 Regular, 2 D.O.), some of the group permissions were not migrated successfully on some (not all) of the fields. Since the group is one of the core ITSM groups (General Access), which does exist with the same ID on both the source and destination servers, I think this is kind of a problem. We'll see if Support can help, but this is really an engineering issue. I can't wait for BMC to give us a migration tool I can trust. -- Rick Cook No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.14/999 - Release Date: 9/10/2007 5:43 PM ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:Where the Answers Are
Re: Problem with Migrator
The pattern is that it can't be trusted to do what it's supposed to do - move Remedy code and/or data from one server to another, and move ALL of it exactly - the first time it's told - so that a subsequent difference report of what it was just told to move doesn't show any appreciable differences that can't be explained by the migration masking we configure. It's like a lazy teenager that only does things halfway and has to be watched like a hawk - except that threatening Migrator doesn't work - I've tried. :-\ Rick On 9/10/07, Joe D'Souza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ** So what happens when you use it, it just randomly skips some permissions or is there some sort of a pattern? Joe -Original Message- *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of *Rick Cook *Sent:* Monday, September 10, 2007 7:28 PM *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG *Subject:* Re: Problem with Migrator ** Yes, it is true. Everybody but Migrator seems to have that concept well in hand... Rick On 9/10/07, Joe D'Souza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ** Doesn't General Access have the same ID irrespective? I thought that when these application groups are created they get created with the same ID across any server.. Is that not true? Joe -Original Message- *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG ]*On Behalf Of *Rick Cook *Sent:* Monday, September 10, 2007 7:10 PM *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG *Subject:* Problem with Migrator ** Here's a heads-up for those of you ahem trusting ahem enough to use Migrator to move your code about: I did a small migration this morning of just a few dozen forms (no data, no workflow). Migrator 7.0.1 p4 - Server 7.0.1 p2 on source server, 7.0.1 p4 on destination server. All of the forms were migrated, but when I ran a difference report immediately afterward, on three of the forms (1 Regular, 2 D.O.), some of the group permissions were not migrated successfully on some (not all) of the fields. Since the group is one of the core ITSM groups (General Access), which does exist with the same ID on both the source and destination servers, I think this is kind of a problem. We'll see if Support can help, but this is really an engineering issue. I can't wait for BMC to give us a migration tool I can trust. -- Rick Cook ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:Where the Answers Are
Re: Problem with Migrator
I would recommend that anyone having trouble with Migrator 7.0.x have a look at 7.1. I have moved a fair amount of workflow and data back and forth between 7.1 ITSM servers with it, and I find it vastly improved over all previous versions. I moved a number of customized forms and workflow objects between 7.0.01.003 and 7.1 with it last month, and did not detect any errors, but I may not have audited the results as exhaustively as Rick has. I was usually satisfied when a subsequent object comparison showed no differences. Note that I was usually running it on either a 2gb RAM Vista or 1gb RAM XP client, and on both it was dramatically faster than previous versions, but one caveat; I still have to use the 5.1.2 migrator on production, so almost anything is better than that. I don't believe that you will experience problems using the 7.1 migrator between 7.0.x servers, although I never tested a 7.0 to 7.0 migration, usually 7.0 to 7.1 or 7.1 to 7.0. You may have problems with using the 7.0 migrator against a 7.1 server because of the change in license storage - I did - but who would want to? When I migrate objects, admittedly I usually turn off all of the Required Object options - a cautious habit from the past - and move everything manually, so I have not done any large-scale migrations of a major change and all of the related objects. A good acid-test in the near future might be to install ITSM patch 006 on one server, and migrate all of the differences to another, but that might be a little bit too extreme (and miss the file system changes). I might try it to move ALL of my customizations to the fresh 7.1 ITSM server I will be building out for production late this month, after backing up the clean database of course, but hopefully _after_ patch 006 comes out. Christopher Strauss, Ph.D. Remedy Database Administrator University of North Texas Computing Center http://remedy.unt.edu/ _ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 6:44 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Problem with Migrator ** The pattern is that it can't be trusted to do what it's supposed to do - move Remedy code and/or data from one server to another, and move ALL of it exactly - the first time it's told - so that a subsequent difference report of what it was just told to move doesn't show any appreciable differences that can't be explained by the migration masking we configure. It's like a lazy teenager that only does things halfway and has to be watched like a hawk - except that threatening Migrator doesn't work - I've tried. :-\ Rick On 9/10/07, Joe D'Souza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ** So what happens when you use it, it just randomly skips some permissions or is there some sort of a pattern? Joe -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG ]On Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 7:28 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Problem with Migrator ** Yes, it is true. Everybody but Migrator seems to have that concept well in hand... Rick On 9/10/07, Joe D'Souza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ** Doesn't General Access have the same ID irrespective? I thought that when these application groups are created they get created with the same ID across any server.. Is that not true? Joe -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:Where the Answers Are
