[aschieman]

I am attempting to apply SP1 to BES v4 for Exchange. My config DB is located on a remote SQL server.

When the upgrade starts, it wants to upgrade the database first. Unfortunately, the database upgrade fails.

There is a support document on the RIM site that talks about this problem (in general) when the database is located on a remote server, but the database files are not in the default program directory. This is the case in my senario.

I upgrade the database separately using CreateDB - with no errors.

When I try to run the upgrade again on the BES, it still trys to upgrade the database and fails.

Has anyone seen this occur?
Does anyone know a way to apply SP1 to the BES, without upgrading the database first?

Thanks,
Adam

[jibi]

double-click on setup.exe not upgrade.exe

[aschieman]

I was running setup.exe. If you run update.exe it tells you to run setup.exe (incidentally).

The update starts, I entered the login credentials for the database, it trys to upgrade the database, and then it fails.

[jibi]

i could be wrong, but from what i can see, the version number for the database from 4.0 to 4.0 SP1 does not change. it still shows 4.0 for my database, after installing SP1 and SP1 HF1.

you can download aespe Table Browser from here and view the ServerDBVersion table in the BESMgmt database (or whatever you called it) to see the version number of the database.

*shrug*

[elgauchogrub]

We had a similar problem, turned out to be permissions on the SQL server, to get the upgrade running we ended up giving the BB service account local admin rights on the SQL box, and used windows trusted authentication for the upgrade, and switched back to SQL authentication post upgrade (db_owner & server administrator permissions)

[rpfeffer]

I didn't think the SP1 update required a database upgrade...

[jibi]

Originally Posted by rpfeffer

I didn't think the SP1 update required a database upgrade...

it doesn't

[rpfeffer]

Originally Posted by jibi

it doesn't

This thread made me a bit nervous about installing SP1. I've seen some horror stories where SP1 caused more issues then it fixed, and we have very few issues currently with our BES server. I would like to install SP1 and SP1HF1 to keep the server up to date, but I'm tentative at this point. What are your thoughts jibi?

[aschieman]

SP1 may not require a database upgrade, but it does make changes to the tables. After the upgrade, the IT Policies included policies applicable to WLAN, SIP and a few more.

[jibi]

Originally Posted by rpfeffer

This thread made me a bit nervous about installing SP1. I've seen some horror stories where SP1 caused more issues then it fixed, and we have very few issues currently with our BES server. I would like to install SP1 and SP1HF1 to keep the server up to date, but I'm tentative at this point. What are your thoughts jibi?

i had no issues on 2 servers. i cannot honestly say you won't have issues, but i do not really see this particular issue as a direct result of the SP1 patch, either. thats just my opinion, though.

[rpfeffer]

what the heck happened to my user text. I've searched alot lately, is that why it changed or is someone messing w/ me?

[jibi]

Originally Posted by rpfeffer

what the heck happened to my user text. I've searched alot lately, is that why it changed or is someone messing w/ me?

*confused*

...?

[rpfeffer]

Originally Posted by jibi

*confused*

...?

it says I know where the search button is.

[udontknowjack]

Anytime you upgrade, add a BES or any thing that does anything with the database other than daily stuff, the besadmin ID has to be a SQL administrator. This is completly frustrating and why RIM didn't think about this and make this more robust is beyond me. Basically, when I have to do SP1, I will have to get my DBAs to give me SA rights, which doesn't thrill them, do the upgrade and then have them back it back down to DBO. I've heard rumors this will be rectified in BES 4.1 but that isn't do out until Q3.

[rpfeffer]

Originally Posted by udontknowjack

Anytime you upgrade, add a BES or any thing that does anything with the database other than daily stuff, the besadmin ID has to be a SQL administrator. This is completly frustrating and why RIM didn't think about this and make this more robust is beyond me. Basically, when I have to do SP1, I will have to get my DBAs to give me SA rights, which doesn't thrill them, do the upgrade and then have them back it back down to DBO. I've heard rumors this will be rectified in BES 4.1 but that isn't do out until Q3.

I agree that this is frusterating. I have no problem getting the necessary permissions when needed, but it is a pain in the butt and can cause un-needed delays. I only wonder how many Hot fixes or Service packs there will be for 4.0 before 4.1 is released.

[bbgirl]

okay, this applies when using SQL, right?

[DoomBringer]

Originally Posted by rpfeffer

it says I know where the search button is.

well, do you?
Haha. That text changes automatically as your post count rises. Basically, you get a new title as you get more posts, which the forum software thinks is indicative of your experience. I could spam 1000s of posts to get the highest title, but I'd still be a spammer with no BB knowledge.

[bbgirl]

haha, I know where the search button is too.


;)

[DoomBringer]

Originally Posted by bbgirl

haha, I know where the search button is too.


;)

Wouldn't knowing where the search button is be indicative of a *lower* post count? I mean, if you knew where the button was, you wouldn't have to post so often to find your answer...
And no offense to BBForums, but the search facility here is kinda weak.

[jibi]

*sigh*

i'm an addict.

DoomBringer, as for the 'search facility' being weak, its only as weak as the user doing the search. as i've explained in a previous thread, it keeps a running tab on words used within the database. so unless that table is being emptied on a regular basis (its not), then there's no way in hell that its weak aside from a few things - number of letters allotted (words too short/words too long may not return results) and number of seconds allotted between searches (20 seconds is low enough, imo... most forums have a 10-20 second implementation although you'd probably never notice this).

Attached is an example of the MySQL database's 'word' table (via phpMyAdmin) for my forum. You will notice that there are 116,379 rows (or words) accounting for 8.2 MB. With that said, I don't really see how a search engine thats properly used, especially within a fairly controlled environment such as a forum, could be considered faulty... Just my opinion.

I think most of the higher post counts come from those who contribute knowledge, experience, etc.