- CheckMates
- :
- Products
- :
- Quantum
- :
- Management
- :
- Re: Secondary SMS Installation and Upgrade Path mu...
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Printer Friendly Page
Are you a member of CheckMates?
×- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Secondary SMS Installation and Upgrade Path must match Primary
Hi There
Bit of a strange one as I was taught something a long time ago, that as far as I know, has not changed in R81.20:
"Secondary (SMS) servers require the same version and hotfixes as the Primary, with the same installation and upgrade path." - its in the Checkpoint R81.20 CCSE slides
So I always took that to mean that if I had an SMS server (which by default is the Primary SMS) was a flat / fresh install of R80.40, then upgraded to R81.10, then to R81.20, then any secondary SMS would need to be a flat install of R80.40 then upgraded to R81.10, then to R81.20 in exactly the same way. IE Same Upgrade path
I cant find ANY reference online to this though, as it seemed pretty important.
Is this still true in R81.20 and have I got it right? Or did I misunderstand the slides?
If I could get feedback and or links to prove or disprove this, that would be amazing!
Thank you
Accepted Solutions
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I totally understand you, the written proof is the best.
So here we go:
\m/_(>_<)_\m/
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
There were some recent posts about this. Check this out...essentially, as Bob Zimmerman said, your best bet is to technically fresh install secondary to SAME version/hotfix and then sync to primary.
Andy
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I see that set of replies, but I also see that it is mentioned that the original way of doing it was to match exactly, and your Lab says that you got it working in your method, but that was with R82. And it was with the Caveat that it was your Lab
Can I get a definitive answer of what is supported by Checkpoint, especially with their Lab Book saying that it must match exactly?
I mean no disrespect, just that I want to have a definitive answer, that is supported by checkpoint. Id like to see it written in their Manuals, SK articles or similar? It doesnt seem to be written anywhere
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Yes, but if you read my response again, I also mentioned that its most likely not supported by CP how I did it, though it works fine, and it also worked in R81.20, not just R82.
Andy
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
You can start rebuilding a box with the latest major version. It's more that you have to install jumbos and hotfixes in the same order on top of the major version.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I mean no disrespect, but is this written anywhere as official by Check Point themselves? SK article, or Manual? Its in their Training Slides
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Im 100% sure that is the case, but you can get an official answer via TAC case, so its documented.
Thats at least what I would do, personally.
Andy
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I totally understand you, the written proof is the best.
So here we go:
\m/_(>_<)_\m/
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
To answer your question, yes, it must match primary.
Andy
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Do you have a SK article or Manual to link for that please? I mean no disrespect!
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
No disrespect taken, I dont get offended on human level, dont worry LOL
No, sadly, I dont, thats why I mentioned TAC case would be bets, to get an official answer.
Andy
