Side-by-side installation of .Net frameworks on Citrix Metaframe servers
-
Hi, A server farm used by our business currently only has the .Net framework up to version 2.0. I'd like to upgrade the entire farm to include all versions of the framework up to 4.0 As far as I'm aware, this shouldn't cause any issues with the servers or existing applications installed on the servers. I advised... The frameworks can be installed side-by-side with no issues and an application running on .Net would need to specifically target a particular version - an existing application running on an older version of .Net will not care that a later version of the framework is installed. Non .Net applications are not affected in any way by framework installations. However, the company responsible for rollouts in our data silo came back with the rather vague... We have experienced other clients having problems with a similar installation... Has anyone experienced any issues with installing 3.5/4.0 on top of 1.1/2.0 where existing application functionality may have broken (or any other adverse effects) I've performed installations up to version 4.0 on servers we directly support and haven't had any problems at all, I just need to convice the infrastructure guys this is low risk. Anything I'm missing here, or was my advice correct? Thanks
-
Hi, A server farm used by our business currently only has the .Net framework up to version 2.0. I'd like to upgrade the entire farm to include all versions of the framework up to 4.0 As far as I'm aware, this shouldn't cause any issues with the servers or existing applications installed on the servers. I advised... The frameworks can be installed side-by-side with no issues and an application running on .Net would need to specifically target a particular version - an existing application running on an older version of .Net will not care that a later version of the framework is installed. Non .Net applications are not affected in any way by framework installations. However, the company responsible for rollouts in our data silo came back with the rather vague... We have experienced other clients having problems with a similar installation... Has anyone experienced any issues with installing 3.5/4.0 on top of 1.1/2.0 where existing application functionality may have broken (or any other adverse effects) I've performed installations up to version 4.0 on servers we directly support and haven't had any problems at all, I just need to convice the infrastructure guys this is low risk. Anything I'm missing here, or was my advice correct? Thanks
My employer has a server room, most of which only have up to .NET 2.0. Earlier this year I had installed .NET 4.0 on one of them and it works flawlessly. I have never encountered this issue either. Not at work, not at home, not anywhere else.
djj55: Nice but may have a permission problem Pete O'Hanlon: He has my permission to run it.
-
Hi, A server farm used by our business currently only has the .Net framework up to version 2.0. I'd like to upgrade the entire farm to include all versions of the framework up to 4.0 As far as I'm aware, this shouldn't cause any issues with the servers or existing applications installed on the servers. I advised... The frameworks can be installed side-by-side with no issues and an application running on .Net would need to specifically target a particular version - an existing application running on an older version of .Net will not care that a later version of the framework is installed. Non .Net applications are not affected in any way by framework installations. However, the company responsible for rollouts in our data silo came back with the rather vague... We have experienced other clients having problems with a similar installation... Has anyone experienced any issues with installing 3.5/4.0 on top of 1.1/2.0 where existing application functionality may have broken (or any other adverse effects) I've performed installations up to version 4.0 on servers we directly support and haven't had any problems at all, I just need to convice the infrastructure guys this is low risk. Anything I'm missing here, or was my advice correct? Thanks
My company upgraded to 4 sometime in the last year and did 3 sometime before that. No problems with running installs. One mitigation strategy would be as follows. 1. Upgraded a single server and monitor for problems. Allow sufficient time for problems to show. Certainly a week and perhaps a month. 2. (Optional) if you have enough servers with the same type of installs then upgrade a percentage of them. For example if you have 100 servers then upgrade 10 of them. Allow sufficient time for problems to show. Certainly a week and perhaps a month. 3. Upgrade the rest of the servers in a staggered manner. Perhaps one a day. Monitor each as you proceed. As a counter to what they said then you might ask about security patches. Presumably those are being applied. And sometimes those cause problems as well.
-
My company upgraded to 4 sometime in the last year and did 3 sometime before that. No problems with running installs. One mitigation strategy would be as follows. 1. Upgraded a single server and monitor for problems. Allow sufficient time for problems to show. Certainly a week and perhaps a month. 2. (Optional) if you have enough servers with the same type of installs then upgrade a percentage of them. For example if you have 100 servers then upgrade 10 of them. Allow sufficient time for problems to show. Certainly a week and perhaps a month. 3. Upgrade the rest of the servers in a staggered manner. Perhaps one a day. Monitor each as you proceed. As a counter to what they said then you might ask about security patches. Presumably those are being applied. And sometimes those cause problems as well.
OK thanks both, that's what I expected but good to hear others with no issues Cheers