Thread Info
  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 35 replies
  • Subscribers 1 subscriber
  • Views 30443 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Upgrading? Need advice? Let us know!

lilhavoc

I want to ask you, our esteemed customers, what information Sophos could provide to make upgrading easier. This applies to upgrades from any version, but I'd love to be able to address people's concerns about the upgrade from Enterprise Console version 3 to version 4 especially.

We've got a great couple of upgrade guides, but what else can we do? What would you like to know more about?

Want to tell us how to do our jobs?? :smileyvery-happy: We'd love to hear to your suggestions, so let's talk!!

Thanks,

Lil

:1039


This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • 0

    Hi John,

    Some interesting points. Can I just pick up on a few parts from that answer:

    Though SUM only actually downloads the files once, it's not the download that's CPU intensive. I'm assuming (please correct me if I see the mechanics of this incorrectly) that you download changes to the C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Sophos\Update Manager\Update Manager\Warehouse folder updating the checksum 'fileliststore.dat'. So there's a necessary checksum done on this folder which is 425MB's for a subscription of 4 packages on my test system.

    Once the warehouse is built, the local distribution CID folders are updated into c:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Sophos\Update Manager\Update Manager\CIDs folders. Once again you checksum and rebuild these folders. and now for a 2 subscription distribution of 4 packages and 1 packages turns 425Mb's in my test platform to 830MB's made up of 667MB's in the CID of all four and 163MB's of the CID that's just one.

    Looking at what's happening here, I'd have to argue with the timings. I'm not seeing "SUM will only do the CPU-heavy distribute if the product has actually changed" each 15 minute interval, I'm seeing the SUM do a full checksum on the warehouse folder (the 650MB's) which it seems to thrash for around 60 seconds followed by a time period of around 7-10 minutes where the CPU load is very high but there's very little disk activity. Is this the " Though I've just noticed a defect in SUM that means this is taking longer than it should" that you too are seeing?

    John, you've got my details, perhaps you can PM me and we can perhaps ping ideas around on how to improve this?

    Matt

    :1756
Reply
  • 0

    Hi John,

    Some interesting points. Can I just pick up on a few parts from that answer:

    Though SUM only actually downloads the files once, it's not the download that's CPU intensive. I'm assuming (please correct me if I see the mechanics of this incorrectly) that you download changes to the C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Sophos\Update Manager\Update Manager\Warehouse folder updating the checksum 'fileliststore.dat'. So there's a necessary checksum done on this folder which is 425MB's for a subscription of 4 packages on my test system.

    Once the warehouse is built, the local distribution CID folders are updated into c:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Sophos\Update Manager\Update Manager\CIDs folders. Once again you checksum and rebuild these folders. and now for a 2 subscription distribution of 4 packages and 1 packages turns 425Mb's in my test platform to 830MB's made up of 667MB's in the CID of all four and 163MB's of the CID that's just one.

    Looking at what's happening here, I'd have to argue with the timings. I'm not seeing "SUM will only do the CPU-heavy distribute if the product has actually changed" each 15 minute interval, I'm seeing the SUM do a full checksum on the warehouse folder (the 650MB's) which it seems to thrash for around 60 seconds followed by a time period of around 7-10 minutes where the CPU load is very high but there's very little disk activity. Is this the " Though I've just noticed a defect in SUM that means this is taking longer than it should" that you too are seeing?

    John, you've got my details, perhaps you can PM me and we can perhaps ping ideas around on how to improve this?

    Matt

    :1756
Children
No Data
Unfiltered HTML