|
|
|
SSChampion
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 1:23 AM
Points: 23,169,
Visits: 6,926
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grasshopper
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, February 12, 2010 4:54 AM
Points: 22,
Visits: 59
|
|
Steve,
While I normally find myself nodding in agreement with most of what you write in the editorial, today is an exception to that; while I can see how not applying patches can definitely 'save' time in the short run, this time will be wasted when a problem occurs. Suddenly a problem can threaten the stability of the system running and frustrate application managers and developers, followed by out-of-schedule updates (as in: late-night work, when the office is empty).
But perhaps I'm biased due to being a developer...
--K
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Enthusiastic
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, March 11, 2010 6:14 AM
Points: 115,
Visits: 456
|
|
If an error occurs and you get to know about it, that is as should. What is more risky with patching with the latest directly without waiting or testing is the logical errors that sometimes takes place and stays hidden and only shows themselves within the results or so.
That's my thoughts about it in short...
|
|
|
|
|
SSChampion
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 1:23 AM
Points: 23,169,
Visits: 6,926
|
|
I think you're mis-reading me a little. I said that I'd like to see the user informed that there is a patch available. There's no shortcut here of not testing, and a smart system could in fact, inform the user of all things that would be changed with the patch.
If you never hit an issue covered in any of the CUs, then why look at them or think about appying them?
The idea was to inform people that there is a fix when an error occurs, not necessarily have them apply updates for no reason, or have errors occur without doing any checking on possible solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Addicted
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, March 19, 2010 7:11 AM
Points: 445,
Visits: 1,779
|
|
Microsoft software sort-of already does try to link errors to solutions. When an error occurs, look at the Event Viewer. An error or other message (assuming one appears, that is) will (usually) contain a link to the "Help and Support Center", where presumably you'd be able to find information to help you resolve the error.
Now, that's all well and good, but unfortunately my experience has been that it's mostly useless, as when I go to the Help and Support Center I usually get something that tells me that there's no information on the error. Not always, but usually.
So, it seems like the framework is in place, it's just lacking content.
|
|
|
|
|
SSChampion
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 1:23 AM
Points: 23,169,
Visits: 6,926
|
|
| That might be true, though I don't think the Event Viewer actually queries for more up to date info. It would be good if you could allow queries to MS or WSUS for a check of the current error against patches out there and return results to someone.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:49 AM
Points: 7,
Visits: 20
|
|
Hay Steve, you've got an interesting subject here. One thing I wanted to bring to everyone's attention is that in the Financial world, many companies have "certifications" associated with their networks. Those certifications often expressly require the corporation to install ANY patch classified as "critical" by the vendor (in our case Microsoft) within 30 days. So whether we like it, trust the testing or not, we often have to roll out Cumulative Updates to our SQL Servers with one month. 
We do it by applying them to the Development servers within 3 days of release and then to the Production servers in the last week of the month - unless Development found a "show stopper".
As you can imagine, we've had our share of Heart-stopping events.
Keep up the good work, we enjoy your site and staff's efforts.
|
|
|
|
|
SSChampion
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 1:23 AM
Points: 23,169,
Visits: 6,926
|
|
Wow, are the CUs classified as critical? I didn't think that applied to most of them.
Thanks for the kind words.
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Enthusiastic
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, March 18, 2010 4:50 PM
Points: 158,
Visits: 505
|
|
Maybe the "Cloud" will save us from the endless treadmill of patches, CU's, SP's, security updates and version upgrades. No, seriously.
James Stover, McDBA
|
|
|
|
|
SSCrazy
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 4:01 PM
Points: 2,395,
Visits: 5,219
|
|
Steve, a lovely idea if it could be made to work.
@Kander
[But perhaps I'm biased due to being a developer...
In this case yes I think so.........
applying a patch for a problem you don't have risks unnecessary problems and will cause an unnecessary outage to apply the patch.
@martinrc - I am sure CUs are not posted as critical. only service packs and some security patches would be. You may be constantly patching for no reason here........
On a related note, is it me, or do MS provide a lot less info about patches then they used to in the good old pre version 8.00.990 days? where have the readme files gone? where do they tell you if the patch updates system databases and stops and starts SQL or if exclusive access is required.? A case in point is the recent MS09-062 which even though it is a security patch does log into SQL and leaves the services down. How do I know if I can leave application of the security patch to an automated tool such as WSUS or have to manage the patching process manually. Its a real pain when you have a lot of servers and have to arrange application downtime.
Perhaps the pop-ups could also let you know that as well 
|
|
|
|
