[[https://www.revelation.com/|Sign up on the Revelation Software website to have access to the most current content, and to be able to ask questions and get answers from the Revelation community]] ==== Deployment Woes (OpenInsight 32-bit Specific) ==== === At 06 AUG 2002 06:34:02PM Mike Parrish wrote: === {{tag>"OpenInsight 32-bit Specific"}} I'm running OI 4.0.2 on a Win2000 workstation and would like to perform an initial full system deploy which I intend to bump with one or more 5-user Server Deployment packs. I am deploying to a a Win2000 fileserver. From within my application account, I initiated the Deploy Application and set all the files to deploy (so that the data would go with them). The docs that I have do not describe the Dicts tab found in the deployment definition window, but since all the database dicts were listed under the Tables tab, I didn't give it much thought. (Ok, I did give it a bunch of thought but figured that being listed under Tables was sufficient.) The RDK went through all the steps until it reached the Prepare Appliction stage. I received an FS error declaring that OENGINE.RUN did not exist. However, when I checked the extract path folder on the fileserver, OENGINE.EXE was there. Naturally, when I tried to run it, the libraries were not found because the extraction process did not complete. Was there some change in the deploy sequence between the 3.7.x version and 4.0.2 that I don't know about and thus could not plan for? I was all set to begin having co-workers begin accessing the application, so any help would be really appreciated. Thanks, Mike ---- === At 06 AUG 2002 07:37PM Donald Bakke wrote: === Mike, Using the RDK in the way you are describing has never been fully functional to my knowledge. We advocate using the Upgrade/Module Deployment Definition (as opposed to a Full System). However, you have to do your own management of this and you need to build one from scratch if you haven't already been doing this (which is something we would have showed you had other decisions been made. ;-) In the meantime, there is another approach you can take to make a quick and workable runtime system for your office. Here's a [url=http://www.revelation.com/__8525652b0066bfaf.nsf/0/C935F3834F6934E185256662000ED55B?OpenDocument]link to a post[/url] I made 4 years ago to explain what to do. dbakke@srpcs.com [url=http://www.srpcs.com]SRP Computer Solutions, Inc.[/url] [img]http://www.srpcs.com/srpicon1.gif[/img] ---- === At 06 AUG 2002 08:45PM Mike Parrish wrote: === Don, Thanks much for the continued help! I'll read over your message and give it a try. If you recall, we have only one copy of the Development package but 2 5-user bump disks for a runtime, which is why I thought a full system deploy would be the way to go. Another problem has cropped up. While I have the REPORTER.RUN, it would seem that I don't have OENGINE.RUN for some reason. Any idea why that might be? Mike ---- === At 06 AUG 2002 10:24PM Donald Bakke wrote: === Mike, You have to contact Revelation to get an OENGINE.RUN. Do that via an email to info@revelation.com ASAP. They are usually very quick to send one back. Also, make sure you include your serial number so they can stamp the runtime engine correctly. Then apply your bump disks to the returned runtime engine. dbakke@srpcs.com [url=http://www.srpcs.com]SRP Computer Solutions, Inc.[/url] [img]http://www.srpcs.com/srpicon1.gif[/img] ---- === At 07 AUG 2002 12:27PM Mike Parrish wrote: === Hey Don, Thanks again. Yes, I suppose not having OENGINE.RUN *WOULD* tend to make it a little difficult to perform a deploy. I just fired off an email to RTI and hopefully will get a response back shortly. I'll let you know. So, since the full system deploy seemed to work yesterday until it searched for the .RUN file that didn't exist, do you suppose they've fixed the bugs in 4.0.2? Should I bother trying that method or follow your earlier suggestion? BR, Mike ---- === At 07 AUG 2002 01:41PM Donald Bakke wrote: === Mike, To my knowledge, no significant work as been done to the RDK. We've seen some improvements that were 64K record size related, but I don't think the core logic for Full System deployment has been looked at. I didn't mean to say that all instances of Full System deployments would fail...just that it has always been flaky and unpredictable. Many problems occur because of a failure to have a well maintained development system but even after people have gone through the checklist of things to do they still can't get this to work. dbakke@srpcs.com [url=http://www.srpcs.com]SRP Computer Solutions, Inc.[/url] [img]http://www.srpcs.com/srpicon1.gif[/img] ---- === At 07 AUG 2002 04:00PM Don Miller - C3 Inc. wrote: === Agree wholeheartedly. Still a problem in OI-32. Don M. ---- === At 08 AUG 2002 12:32PM [url=http://www.sprezzatura.com]The Sprezzatura Group[/url] wrote: === Actually, I've had good experiences with the full deployment. The problems most people had generally fell into one of xxxx categories. 1) Not all the items were marked publishable 2) 64K limits 3) Missing application rows. 4) OS files not being places in the expected directories. 5) Repository entities existed for items that did not exist. ScanRep took care of #5, a quick program to mark all items publishable took care of #1 and OI 4 took care of #2. 3 and 4 require some study of your system and hand modification. [url=http://www.sprezzatura.com]The Sprezzatura Group[/url] [i]World Leaders in all things RevSoft[/i] [img]http://www.sprezzatura.com/zz.gif[/img] [[https://www.revelation.com/revweb/oecgi4p.php/O4W_HANDOFF?DESTN=O4W_RUN_FORM&INQID=NONWORKS_READ&SUMMARY=1&KEY=C482D657317A9F6D85256C0D007BF778|View this thread on the forum...]]