Discussions & comments on Painless Upgrade procedure
27 Oct 2005 7:07:06 UTC
Topic 190068
(moderation:
Please use this thread for any comments you may have to do with the upgrading instructions for the new "recommended" BOINC 5.2.5 as documented in the sticky thread at the top of this board. You can comment on any aspect you like and give any feedback you wish.
If you wish to share any particular experiences or problems or if you found any particular "gotchas" please discuss them here. Also if you have corrections or changes you would like to see in the procedure documented in the sticky thread, please make them here and I'll make the changes to the text there.
Cheers,
Gary.
Discussions & comments on Painless Upgrade procedure
)
Thierry Van Driessche made the point in referring to the "Painless Upgrading" procedure:-
However, this is not relevant to an upgrade. Since all the user data and configuration files are in place, you will see no screens asking for email addresses or passwords or account keys, etc, and certainly no choice between "new account" or "existing account".
If anyone needs to do a "very first time" install then you will be given a choice of account type. This is where you would see a screen giving the two options and would need to choose "existing account" if you had already setup your account on the website.
If anyone needs to do a painless "new install on a 2nd machine" a procedure as painless as the upgrade procedure is easy to arrange by creating a BOINC folder in advance and populating it with data, configuration and program files. A lot of downloading of programs is avoided too so the install is quite fast. If there is enough interest I'll try to write such a procedure and post it in a new thread shortly.
Cheers,
Gary.
I have also upgraded several
)
I have also upgraded several boxes from version 4.45 to 5.2.2 using various Windows operating systems. On Windows XP pro with SP2 firewall, I simply exited Boinc 4.45. I did not uninstall Boinc 4.45 but on purpose ran the install routine for 5.2.2 and the procedure was flawless. It upgraded Boinc manager and resumed from where it left off.
I did the same thing on a Windows 2000 pro SP4 box and it simply upgraded the Boinc Manager in the same way as the Windows XP pro SP2 Box.
In examining the installed programs listing in the control panel, it simply said Boinc. There is nothing wrong with Gary's listed method of uninstalling the previous Boinc and then installing Boinc 5.2.2 but I was curious as to what might happen IF I did not uninstall it.
I do also run the Microsoft Anti-Spyware Beta1 software and it did throw up a window requesting permission to communicate with the internet. I did reply with an "allow" button depression.
Thanks for that. It's good
)
Thanks for that. It's good to know that 5.2.2 does indeed go in over the top of 4.45 without issue.
The main reason why I like uninstalling first (apart from the fact that it's quick and easy anyway) is the bit about removing previous registry entries. Maybe I'm deluding myself but the thought of cleaning out all the registry entries from the previous version is very attractive to me.
I once saved a copy of the registry before installing a software package (not BOINC) and then took a snapshot after the package install and then did a diff to see what changed. There were just so many changes that I gave up trying to figure out what was really happening. It certainly left me with the thought of how advisable it is to try to keep the registry clean if possible.
Cheers,
Gary.
This message is to announce
)
This message is to announce the demise of 5.2.2 and its replacement with 5.2.5 as the new recommended version. Some minor changes have been made to the sticky thread to acknowledge the transition to 5.2.5. Please use this discussion thread for any comments related to upgrading from a 4.xx BOINC to 5.2.5. Anyone already on 5.2.2 could just install 5.2.5 "over the top" of 5.2.2 if they wanted.
Cheers,
Gary.
ROM explained here the
)
ROM explained here the changes in 5.2.5, but I've discovered in reading that thread that there was a version 5.2.4??? in the interim, so I couldn't say from what version these changes apply. Could be a little quick on the trigger in declaring 5.x out of beta?
Regards,
Michael
microcraft
"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" - MLK
What is there about 5.2.2
)
What is there about 5.2.2 that makes it "beta"?
I just posted in another
)
I just posted in another thread, but it probably should have been here...
In the new version numbering system, the last digit is just a "bugfix number". So the 5.2.x's should all be the same, with just relatively minor 'fixes' each time the last digit bumps. Users only need to move from 5.2.2 to 5.2.5 if they have the specific problem addressed; RAS, Win9x shutdown, or Mac screensaver, IIRC.
Also, the recommended and even the latest beta version may vary by platform. 5.2.2 was never the recommended for Linux or Mac. I'm not sure any 5.2 was, and too lazy to go look, but if it was, it was 5.2.4 on Linux - assuming it's okay, the first V5 Mac "recommended" will probably be 5.2.5. (When I get off the boards, I'll see if I can break it...) And I don't even want to think about the 5.3.1 that somebody already grabbed and optimized!
Anyway, I would in most cases just refer to 5.2.x as "5.2" or "5.2.x" and not specify the last digit, unless it's relevant to the specific question.
RE: What is there about
)
Walt,
There are significant numbers of participants (we are not "users") who have trouble logging in to their existing accounts after switching to 5.x. When my rig is 60%, or about 3 hrs 6 minutes, through a WU, and 5.x tells me that there are ~3.5 hours To Completion, where all 4.x clients were very accurate. When version #s are changing on an almost-daily basis.
These are not characteristics of a finished product, but of a work-in-progress, ergo "beta".
Regards,
Michael
microcraft
"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" - MLK
RE: I just posted in
)
That's OK as I saw the comments there and agreed with what you said. I've made a number of minor changes to the Upgrade procedure which hopefully do address the points you raise. Here are a couple of thoughts of my own.
As I understand it, an even middle number in the version numbering scheme is meant to represent the "stable" product whereas an odd middle number is the "bleeding edge". In other words 5.2.X is stable whilst 5.3.X is likely to be less so. The 5.1.X series represented the progress towards the coming 5.2.X stable series. When the 5.2.X series was deemed to be ready for prime time, it replaced the long running 4.45 as the recommended Windows version. This happened to occur at 5.2.2.
I was expecting 5.2.2 to remain as the recommended version for quite a while until something sufficiently important was found to make a change of recommendation neccessary. Important or not, a change in recommendation has happened with 5.2.5. All the new daily signups anywhere in the BOINC world will be downloading 5.2.5 so if people don't stay with the current recommendation there is going to be a growing support problem with trying to keep track of which bug was fixed in which particular version. I'm concerned that the standard help reply will be "Upgrade to the current version and see if the problem is gone" because of the impossibility of knowing all things for all versions. Maybe that's actually a good thing :).
I think that if there are rapid future changes to the recommended version, the 4.XX world will quickly become forgotten so people still in that world should consider moving sooner rather than later.
All just IMHO ....
Cheers,
Gary.
just upgraded to boinc
)
just upgraded to boinc cc5.2.5. however, i'm wondering if anyone on dialup has tried to autoconnect for upload, etc. and how that went? have not tried yet. when i was crunching seti classic, i had no problems but have never been able to make it work with boinc.
thanks for any replies.