Topic: Upgrading from 8 to 9 with affa

[brainamess]

Good evening,

I have just updated my server to the latest version of SME using affa.

I noticed that when I installed 9 and put affa on it the login looked new. As soon as I used affa to rise the backup server that is 9, the login screen looks like it did with 8.

I am wondering if this may show that the backup didn't restore perfectly or if I am worrying for nothing.

The bottom of the new server says the right version 9.2 so I feel I am probably worried for nothing but was wondering if anyone had any ideas or did this upgrade like I did.

Brian

[JohnG]

I'm guessing your browser's cache just needed to be updated. Clear the cache or use a different browser and you should be good to go.

[Jean-Philippe Pialasse]

Or you simply hit a bug of affa which is not designed to upgrade between versions, as it migh overwrite rpm owned files with older version...

This is a backup rise tool designed for disaster recovery in mind.

See https://bugs.contribs.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10188

I can only suggest to use regular console or manager backup

[Stefano]

I disagree.. I personally migrated dozen of servers (both hw and o.s. upgrade) with no issues, but YMMV

[Jean-Philippe Pialasse]

I disagree.. I personally migrated dozen of servers (both hw and o.s. upgrade) with no issues, but YMMV

well having the server running does not mean the migration was perfect. Mostly a problem as described on bug 10188 could lead to problems with clamav/clamd or another service not able to access some files because the uid in passwd /shadow files are different from the one installed on the new system, or it could be some files owned by a rpm that were restore as I said earlier. If the files are similar you see nothing... if they had visible changes (look and color of server-manager) you might see the issue.

Yes it could work, but it will also depend of what folder where Included in the affa jobs...

also as pointed in the bug 10188 you could have a conflict leading to wrong file rised because the file was newer on the destination.

[brainamess]

What you guys all said sounds possible. I will have to watch it but it seems it was a cache issue, as the server today looks like it should.

I will keep an eye out, I appreciate the input.

[Jean-Philippe Pialasse]

What you guys all said sounds possible. I will have to watch it but it seems it was a cache issue, as the server today looks like it should.

I will keep an eye out, I appreciate the input.

so you might only have catched a browser cache issue as pointed by JohnG, or that some templates needed to be expanded, good news. And this was indeed the most probable.

However, I would have a check at your message log just in case after seeing bug 10188.

[brainamess]

Thanks for the help, checked my message logs and everything looks good. I appreciate you