Re: sms 2003 patch management is brutal!
From: Kim Oppalfens (kim_at_computacenter.nospam)
Date: 11/10/04
- Next message: Kim Oppalfens: "Re: WinXP as a Distribution Point Follow Up Question"
- Previous message: Javier SN: "Windows XP SP2 with SMS' Software Update Tools"
- In reply to: James: "sms 2003 patch management is brutal!"
- Next in thread: Allan Tee: "Re: sms 2003 patch management is brutal!"
- Reply: Allan Tee: "Re: sms 2003 patch management is brutal!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:10:19 +0100
inline
> I just started to play with patch management. I created an
> advertisement for the latest IE cumulative update (834707) using the
> Software Update Wizard. I then targeted it at my 'servers' collection.
> In the options I told it to defer rebooting for servers.
>
> Here's my experience with it:
>
> - The program ran on servers that already had the patch installed
> previously (isn't that the point of the scan tool, to determine what
> patches are needed?)
Yes, it is, are you sure the patch was installed and active? That means
was the machine rebooted after the patch if needed? If a patch that
requires a reboot is installed without rebooting the patch isn't really
alive and the scan tool will report it as such. By consequence the patch
will reinstall.
> - Despite telling it to not reboot the servers, lo and behold all the
> servers tell me they are rebooting and gave me the countdown timer
How did you tell it not to reboot the servers? I assume in the
distribute software updates wizard. Did you also use the suppress reboot
switch on the patch? The wizard actually waits for the result of every
patch you install if you suppress the reboot in the patch it will write
to a log file that the reboot was suppressed. Once all patches have
installed the wizard will check the log file and verify whether any
reboots were suppressed. If so, the wizard tool might trigger a reboot,
unless you suppress that reboot during the wizard.
> - There's absolutely no logging in Event Viewer on the clients to say
> that the patch was installed
Not really an sms issue, this is something that the patches should take
care of if we want that. Sms does generate a log file called
patchinstall.log and registers in wmi.
>
> I think I'll stick with SUS........it's free, it's intuitive in
> comparison, and it works as it's designed.
I agree with all your observations on SUS, just want to add that sms
works as designed as well.
I think Microsoft is well aware of the not so intuitive way sms patch
management works.
>
> J.
>
-- Kim Oppalfens Proud father of Lennart Oppalfens Since 05/11/2004 08.53 GMT+1
- Next message: Kim Oppalfens: "Re: WinXP as a Distribution Point Follow Up Question"
- Previous message: Javier SN: "Windows XP SP2 with SMS' Software Update Tools"
- In reply to: James: "sms 2003 patch management is brutal!"
- Next in thread: Allan Tee: "Re: sms 2003 patch management is brutal!"
- Reply: Allan Tee: "Re: sms 2003 patch management is brutal!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
