Upgrade 5.2 to 5.5 fails

[glynd]

Trying to upgrade 5.2 to 5.5 CE using the upgrade wizard in admin. Do the system check which comes back clean then select the file to upload (SugarCE-Upgrade-5.2.0-to-5.5.0.zip) and click upload upgrade and after a second or 2 showing the progress bar, I go back to the home page and nothing else happens. If I go back into the upgrade wizard, it says in progress but it stays there all day.
Current version is 5.2.0k (Build 5837)

Any ideas, please?

Cheers and TIA
Glyn

[salesagility]

If you are upgrading a production instance of sugar ... then STOP ... 5.5 is not ready for production use yet.

Look in your sugar.log file and see if any errors have been logged

[jnassi]

Trying to upgrade 5.2 to 5.5 CE using the upgrade wizard in admin. Do the system check which comes back clean then select the file to upload (SugarCE-Upgrade-5.2.0-to-5.5.0.zip) and click upload upgrade and after a second or 2 showing the progress bar, I go back to the home page and nothing else happens. If I go back into the upgrade wizard, it says in progress but it stays there all day.
Current version is 5.2.0k (Build 5837)

Any ideas, please?

Cheers and TIA
Glyn

Hi Glyn,

Can you check your sugarcrm.log file and especially your upgradeWizard.log file to see if there are any errors being reported by the application?

Depending on the issue being reported in the logs, you may wish to try the Silent Upgrade route:
http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/support/...e.html#1182753

[glynd]

No actual errors in the log files but this in the upgrade wizard log
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:26:45 +0200 [UpgradeWizard] - At upload.php
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:26:45 +0200 [UpgradeWizard] - finding new files for upgrade
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:26:46 +0200 [UpgradeWizard] - *** UW using [ ] as source for patch files.

On the 3rd line the [ ] seems odd. Should there not be the upgrade file name in there?

However, this could all be academic based on the comment from SaleAgility that 5.5 is not ready for production, I won't be upgrading as yet. The question I now have is when will it be ready and how do we tell. The full release is out and that normally means that a product is ready for use in anger, no?

Cheers and thank for the help
Glyn

[salesagility]

However, this could all be academic based on the comment from SaleAgility that 5.5 is not ready for production, I won't be upgrading as yet. The question I now have is when will it be ready and how do we tell. The full release is out and that normally means that a product is ready for use in anger, no?

Glyn

Glyn ... just because a software product has gone to release status does not mean it is ready for production use. It simply means that as far as the authors are concerned, they're ready to release it for production use. Open Source has always had a release early, release often mentality which frequently means that it's the user community that do the bug finding. That's fine if you have a technology grounding, but for the vast majority of people it just means bugs and problems.

With all software technology products (and I include big projects like Linux and Windows) early adopters feel the most pain. And if pain aversion is attractive, then wait for at least four sugar patch releaases before upgrading.

[glynd]

Makes sense, thanks!
What do you make of the failure to upgrade though?

[jnassi]

No actual errors in the log files but this in the upgrade wizard log
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:26:45 +0200 [UpgradeWizard] - At upload.php
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:26:45 +0200 [UpgradeWizard] - finding new files for upgrade
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:26:46 +0200 [UpgradeWizard] - *** UW using [ ] as source for patch files.

On the 3rd line the [ ] seems odd. Should there not be the upgrade file name in there?

I'd have to check with our developers on why the [ ] is empty, but I don't think that's the issue here. I see the same line in my CE 5.2.0k upgraded instance. However, the next lines should be reporting the success of the file upload. Here's the same section from my upgradeWizard.log file:

Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:12:59 -0800 [UpgradeWizard] - At upload.php
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:12:59 -0800 [UpgradeWizard] - finding new files for upgrade
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:12:59 -0800 [UpgradeWizard] - *** UW using [ ] as source for patch files.
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:13:07 -0800 [UpgradeWizard] - setting session variables...
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:13:07 -0800 [UpgradeWizard] - At upload.php
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:13:07 -0800 [UpgradeWizard] - running upload
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:13:07 -0800 [UpgradeWizard] - File uploaded to /Applications/MAMP/htdocs/SugarCE-Full-5.2.0k/cache/upload/SugarCE-Upgrade-5.2.0-to-5.5.0.zip
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:13:07 -0800 [UpgradeWizard] - extracting manifest.
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:13:08 -0800 [UpgradeWizard] - validating manifest.php file
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:13:08 -0800 [UpgradeWizard] - copying manifest.php to final destination.
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:13:08 -0800 [UpgradeWizard] - zip file moved to [/Applications/MAMP/htdocs/SugarCE-Full-5.2.0k/cache/upload/SugarCE-Upgrade-5.2.0-to-5.5.0.zip]

My assumption is that the upload of the file itself was not successful. There are a number of possible limitations you could be bumping up against. Start by checking out this KB article: http://kb.sugarcrm.com/config/appset...garcrm-module/

And, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, the Silent Upgrade option is available to you if you cannot modify the PHP and web server limits.

[jnassi]

On the subject of production readiness, Sugar 5.5 has been through 2 public betas and 4 public release candidates over the last several months. This is NOT a GA release that's been rushed out the door.

SugarCRM Inc. considers Sugar 5.5 GA to be production ready. Other opinions are of course welcome, but should be taken as opinion, not policy.

[salesagility]

On the subject of production readiness, Sugar 5.5 has been through 2 public betas and 4 public release candidates over the last several months. This is NOT a GA release that's been rushed out the door.

SugarCRM Inc. considers Sugar 5.5 GA to be production ready. Other opinions are of course welcome, but should be taken as opinion, not policy.

I really appreciate the effort that has gone into this release and as one of the community "test fest" members I have contributed to this focus on quality.

But there are software products with true open source development models with considerably larger communities of developers than Sugar that still do not release production ready code.

It's one of the oldest cliches in software but it's always been expensive to be a pioneer. That held true 30 years ago and it holds true today.....no matter how much effort goes into testing.

I am advising all my clients to wait until a couple of patches have been released before they upgrade.

And again, I reiterate, I think this increased focus on software quality is excellent and appropriate.

[Angel]

I've had the fortune of being on both sides of the fence on this particular topic.

It seems unfair to me to fault Sugar staff for stating it is ready, even if others outside their offices may not think so. The reality is that it is impossible for them to account for every potential issue that may arise.

Testing can only uncover so much and it never accurately portrays what will happen once things are out "in the wild" and in the hands of a larger sized community. For example, it is impossible for testing to account for the endless possibilities of things one can do to the backend which directly affect Sugar's database and may in turn cause a problem down the road. Some issues can't be uncovered until it goes out to the masses.

It also doesn't have anything to do with open versus closed source. There is a reason why the term "Microsoft doesn't get it right till version 3.0" was coined.

All that being said, we always advice our customers to wait 3 - 6 months after the release of any software before installing it. That's regardless of vendor and it is not a reflection on the vendor. I am sure that in certain cases new releases could be used without problem in production, and likewise, other cases may uncover issues that require hours or days to bring to resolution. I suppose if you don't mind spending that time being the first to find a solution to a problem, then our advice is moot. To each his own I suppose, but in general, most people don't want to spend that much time fixing a problem, in which case, one shouldn't put oneself in a position where one might need to do so.