file names for SmartConsole major/JHF deployment

[pbbb]

Hey there,

i had several times the same problem with the deployment tool out of the SmartConsole.

Todays mission: upgrade from R81.10 T107 to R81.20 with Blinkimage to JHF92.

my thoughts on this: 

1. going to the download of the BlinkImage: Blink Image for R81.20 Security Gateway including R81.20 Jumbo Hotfix Accumulator Take 92

2. import into the SmartConsole package repo with "Upload from local..."

3. upgradable cluster -> "Version Upgrade..." -> "Upgrade to specific" select the new BlinkImage" -> Download package from: "Gateway" because its much fast if the gateways are downloading it

verify succeeds

4. error:

5. going manually on both gateways CPUSE, refresh the list, the BlinkImage appears in the list

6. execute the upgrade again from SmartConsole, same failure

all gateways do have full access to checkpoint cloud, when it try to download it manually it works..

So what is wrong here? I tried to delete the Image again and tried the download from CheckPoint Cloud with this filename:

"blink_image_1.1_Check_Point_R81.20_T631_JHF_T92_SecurityGateway.tgz" as it shown also on the download page, but it cant find the package. On the gateway it self, the file name is exactly the same except the captial B at the beginning. When i try it with: "Blink_image_1.1_Check_Point_R81.20_T631_JHF_T92_SecurityGateway.tgz" an unknown error occurs.....

I dont want to pre download the image on every of my 100 clusters....

Is there anyone with the same problem?
thanks

[PhoneBoy]

The "online identifier" is of the form: Check_Point_R81_20_JUMBO_HF_MAIN_Bundle_T<Take number>_FULL.tgz
Which means for Take 92, it'd be Check_Point_R81_20_JUMBO_HF_MAIN_Bundle_T92_FULL.tgz

[pbbb]

Yes, you are right, but as i mentioned at the first post, i dont want to install an JHF, i want upgrade the major version from R81.10 to R81.20 with a blink image!

[the_rock]

Just make sure package name is correct, as it shows in web UI if you tried to upgrade there. I used R82 below as an example, since all my lab is R81.20

Andy

 

[pbbb]

Yes, i tried it exactly with this name and the extension .tgz, but i always get this error i explained in the first post...

[pbbb]

If i try to delete it from the mgmt repo and paste the filename in the search filed, the error is the same:

[PhoneBoy]

What you're supposed to put there is the CPUSE identifier, which is slightly different from the filename.
I would check with TAC on this.

[pbbb]

Very strange, it doesnt even find the package when i do the "Upgrade tot the recommended major version"..

[majkel]

Hi, 

We have the exact same error. Ended up downloading manually an import. However would be nice to make the download from cloud service working. 

Any luck with TAC on this ? 

[pbbb · Accepted solution]

Hi, 

yes i opened a TAC ticket.. our management has a lot of attached contracts and it seems that the management has to send all this attached contracts to the download center and this takes so much time, that the downloadcenter gives a timeout back...

The technician set this value higher, default i think it was 20:

cpprod_util CPPROD_SetValue PDT CKBatchSize 1 60 false

cpprod_util CPPROD_GetValue PDT CKBatchSize 1

after this it works without problems

bg, philipp 

[majkel]

Thats lovely. Is this something you can run on the fly without intertacting with TAC?

[pbbb]

We ran it on the fly without a restart or something but i dont know how deep it will change things.

For my understanding it only changes the size of the contract batch which is send to the download/usercenter.

bg, philipp

[majkel]

Alright thanks. I think its best to let TAC take a look as we didnt have that PDT product installed mentioned in your commands.

[the_rock]

Makes sense for sure.

[majkel]

Seems legit to check this with TAC since in our case we got different values but "same commands".

Solution for our case:

cpprod_util CPPROD_GetValue PDT CKBatchSize 1

cpprod_util CPPROD_SetValue PDT CKBatchSize 1 10 false

cpprod_util CPPROD_GetValue PDT CKBatchSize 1

[majkel]

Info from TAC:

The root cause is that there are CKs which are not entitled to updates (expired, etc.) and were rejected by the download center.