February 13, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Slipstreaming
February 14, 2008 at 12:10 am
I recently had an experience with Windows Vista x64 that really brought my attention to this particular issue - who in the hell has the time/knowledge to slipstream? The update/slipstream process needs to be absolutely painless to the end user or it's worthless. In regards to my story below, I could have slipstreamed patches to fix all of the issues I encountered, but then again how the heck am I supposed to know that I need to do so?
On to my story:
My soon to be wonderful brand spanking new Dell Laptop arrived with Windows Vista Business 32-bit installed from the factory, being the geek that I am (and very interested in SQL 2008) I decided that I really, really needed to be running 64-bit Windows Vista on this brand new piece of dual-core Intel 64-bit capable, gob of memory & disk kit.
Pull out RTM version of Vista Business X64 from MSDN, install, blue screen... AARGH! 1st visit to KB, probably related to SATA drive and advanced features (AHDCI something or other), disable in bios... farther this time but yet another BSOD, shit! This sucks.
More time in KB, geez! Vista RTM (both 32 & 64 bit) won't install on a machine with more than 3GB of ram installed (definitely a WTF given current state of hardware world) - screwdriver time, remove 2GB of RAM and viola, I've got a working 64-bit install of Windows Vista - reinstall RAM and all is wonderful (with certain exceptions like lack of 64-bit support from particular vendors - HELLO Cisco, no 64 bit VPN client, way to go Cisco?).
Talk about a pain in the butt... good thing I'm a geek or I'd have probably given up/sent the darn thing back.
As an aside, laptop #1 died a horrible death after less than 24 hours, came back the next morning after fighting through install issue to a dead, dead, dead motherboard - wouldn't even post. To Dell's "credit" they shipped me a brand new laptop after only 30 minutes on the phone, replacement arrived only 10 days after I contacted tech. support. Given lessons learned from laptop #1, install on laptop #2 took less than an hour (after I removed 2GB RAM).
Joe
P.S. be sure to have a teeny tiny phillips screwdriver on hand at all times when dealing with hardware these days.
P.P.S. SQL 2008 CTP install went just fine, then I tried "Connect", "New Query", "select top 10 * from X" after 20 minutes with no response, killed query, uninstalled CTP - I guess expecting the 5th or 6th version of a beta to be able to perform even the basic application functions was a bit too much.
P.P.P.S. Bitter? Not me! Just occasionally frustrated.
February 14, 2008 at 2:44 am
Joe,
I have installed Vista on a 4GB box, both 32-bit and 64-bit, with no problems. It worked with AHDCI off and on. I did have problems finding drivers for sound, graphics, modem, etc but no blue screens and eventually all the hardware worked!. I run Vista Ultimate 64-bit with twin xeon 5148 2.3 GHz processors and 4 GB RAM on a X7DAL-E motherboard. It performs at least as well as XP on a single-processor 32-bit 1.8 GHz box.
Original author: https://github.com/SQL-FineBuild/Common/wiki/ 1-click install and best practice configuration of SQL Server 2019, 2017 2016, 2014, 2012, 2008 R2, 2008 and 2005.
When I give food to the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor they call me a communist - Archbishop Hélder Câmara
February 14, 2008 at 3:38 am
I had to install SQL Express (gasp!) yesterday. The download already had SP2 🙂
I suppose MS go to the trouble of allowing Windows to be slipstreamed because you tend to push it out to LOTS of machines whereas SQL Server isn't installed on that many boxes by comparison. The slipstream for Windows (last time I did it) was largely the service pack's files overwriting the files of the RTM version. In MS SQL there's Windows installer, etc to contend with, which could make it harder.
Having said that, I write software that uses Windows installer with Installshield Express. You can do patches and releases and distribute them both but I've found a patch on a patch on a patch starts to
a) take a LONG time to build
b) starts to break after a few patches
So now I've gone the easy road and have new releases of our software auto-uninstall older releases, keep the settings in the registry and then install the new version seamlessly. One package for updates or new installs 😀
February 14, 2008 at 5:06 am
To try to bring this topic back to slipstreaming...
I think that all MS products should be available with the latest SP slipstreamed into the install media. This should definitely apply to any downloaded products. When new batches of CDs / DVDs are cut, then this should be rolled out to the optical media also.
It should also be possible for each site to update their own disk copies of install media by slipstreaming the latest SPs and CUs. This would simplify the install process, and minimise the complexity of the media library.
We pay MS for maintenance. This should be part of the standard package we get.
Original author: https://github.com/SQL-FineBuild/Common/wiki/ 1-click install and best practice configuration of SQL Server 2019, 2017 2016, 2014, 2012, 2008 R2, 2008 and 2005.
When I give food to the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor they call me a communist - Archbishop Hélder Câmara
February 14, 2008 at 5:30 am
As the author of FineBuild, I would like to say a bit about what it can do...
One of the things FineBuild does is to encapsulate the install of SQL, SP, CU and BOL update into a single process. This does a good job of slipstreaming the basic software but most sites need more than this.
FineBuild also includes install processes for a number of useful community tools. These can all be slipstreamed into the same silent build. Each site can add their own tools to the install process, giving a silent install of all that is needed for SQL Server to be used in an optimum way by the site.
The next stage is configuration. Things like auto restart, memory usage, standard DBA accounts and much more are configured by FineBuild. Again, there is a routine that can be changed as required to include site-specific configuration that is not already in FineBuild.
The FineBuild documentation also gives a host of advice on how to protect SQL Server using GPOs. This is an area where the MS documentation is light. It seems to me the SQL Server authors assume that everybody will be happy setting ACLs. Windows Admin people generally abhore ACL hacking, and want to mandate the use of GPOs wherever a GPO can be made to work. FineBuild helps bridge this gap.
The object of all this is to give a 1-click install and configuration of SQL Server 2005 that can be deployed manually or by tools such as Altiris.
I am not saying FineBuild gives the world's best possible install of SQL Server. But FineBuild does put a line in the sand to say it is easy to get as good as this. Experienced DBAs may like that much of what they need to install and configure is built-in to FineBuild. Newcomers to SQL Server may just like that they can get a best-practice SQL Server 2005 install without having to work out how to get it all done.
Original author: https://github.com/SQL-FineBuild/Common/wiki/ 1-click install and best practice configuration of SQL Server 2019, 2017 2016, 2014, 2012, 2008 R2, 2008 and 2005.
When I give food to the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor they call me a communist - Archbishop Hélder Câmara
February 14, 2008 at 6:23 am
Having once worked for a very big software shop, I can say that releasing a CD/DVD master is no small feat -- I couldn't imagine having to get one out quarterly or even annually. If you consider the probability that the various editions are branched builds (not just disabled bits in the registry), there are hundreds of versions of SQL in the wild when you account for localization.
Now, let's say you want to test a patch... you've narrowed down the bug to a few specific methods and a few specific ways of having those methods called. From there, most of the test is interface-level (binary) without having to consider what the rest of SQL is doing. On to blackbox testing, you take the developers "fixed" binary, verify that it's replacing the proper version on the system, and commit the change. Even with SQL, the actual patches tend to touch few files. Testing a patch is "easy".
Now, what if you had to test a slipstream? That means the entire code surface of SQL must be retested in every variation of SQL to (hopefully) vet the bug(s) that were supposed to be fixed by the patch. How do you know you didn't create a new bug? You don't, because a new bug might've been introduce by the rebuild, which hasn't been attempted in a year or so, and those seven guys actually work somewhere else now.
Then there's the actual production side of it -- coordinating with dozens of teams to have box art updated (*includes SP1), disc art updated, and the facilities actually making the new discs have to verify that there isn't a problem in the mastering process. Then you have the (tens of) thousands of now-obsolete old discs that you have to eat.
I wouldn't do it, either.
-Matt
February 14, 2008 at 6:34 am
mlavallee, I agree that with the system we have built for ourselves it is a pain to release slipstreamed software...
...but if you were given the task of releasing slipstreamed versions of all MS products on a regular basis, I am sure you would work out ways of simplifying the process. Maybe slipstreaming on this scale won't happen overnight, but it could be made to work.
At the moment the end customer takes the pain and cost of not having slipstreamed software. To me, that says there is a major growth opportunity for a vendor that can provide slipstreamed and tested versions of their software. I hope someone goes for it!
Original author: https://github.com/SQL-FineBuild/Common/wiki/ 1-click install and best practice configuration of SQL Server 2019, 2017 2016, 2014, 2012, 2008 R2, 2008 and 2005.
When I give food to the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor they call me a communist - Archbishop Hélder Câmara
February 14, 2008 at 7:02 am
Matt,
I can appreciate the difficulty in testing and worrying about the localization and variations that might exist, but
Isn't that what they do with Service Packs?
Aren't they tested as installing on all the variations of SQL Server and still working? Isn't the "patched" version that's tested the same as what would be slipstreamed? How hard would it be to make that available for download or sell for $30 to get the media?
February 14, 2008 at 7:41 am
... *except* that patched binaries can be tested exclusive of the main branch of software itself, so a replacement xpstar90.dll can be unit tested without having to test SQL Server as a whole. It's a subtle difference, but huge in ramifications.
-Matt
February 14, 2008 at 8:41 am
But would you test a .DLL outside of the main branch? Maybe that's why there have been issues with a number of the patches.
Typically the SPs go out to beta and you don't test the patch, you test the patched system. I'd think that this wouldn't be a huge problem for MS. They have resources, and could easily automate a large portion of the testing.
February 14, 2008 at 11:02 am
Steve,
Could this be the explanation for why the are so hesitant to give us SP3 for SQL 2k5?
Maybe they really don't have the resources to do it once it's no longer the "active" product for their release teams.
Now I'll take my tinfoil hat and go home,
-Darren
February 14, 2008 at 11:57 am
They have the resources, at least MS does. As far as dedicating to SS2K5, I'd like to think that it is still the active product right now.
My guess is someone doesn't want to spend the time and money to get it done. However you can't save your way to prosperity. You need to invest in your products to make people believe in them.
February 14, 2008 at 12:05 pm
mlavallee (2/14/2008)
Then there's the actual production side of it -- coordinating with dozens of teams to have box art updated (*includes SP1), disc art updated, and the facilities actually making the new discs have to verify that there isn't a problem in the mastering process. Then you have the (tens of) thousands of now-obsolete old discs that you have to eat.
I really think economics are a large reason for not doing it. There's the production/logistics side as above and then a big marketing component. How many times have you seen two different box designs for the same product on a shelf and tried to figure out which was newer? The marketing folks don't make it easy to differentiate unless they see a profit motive to touting the "new and improved" version.
Regards,
Greg Young
February 14, 2008 at 12:08 pm
As far as I know - the downloads are available, but only to a few. I suspect it's the licensing issue that is preventing this from being more widespread.
On the MSDN ultimate license (I don't think ultimate is the right word, but you'll know which one I am talking about. Look at the price list, find the high ticket item), the download site has download images with SP1, SP2, etc... in them. Not every product, but I know I saw SQL 2000 slipstreamed, and Dev edition SP1.
The company stopped paying for it, so I can't check what is up there now. I guess I am back to doing it the hard way....
I've also seen it in the MSDN Action Pack (restricted to System builders and OEM's), so perhaps it's in the "regular" Technet Plus subscription as well (haven't decided whether to spring for that yet or not).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply