Software Installation aborting at about 97%
Hello, I want to update a Virtual F5 from 14.1.2.3to 14.1.2.4. but when install-process reaches about 97% the GUI reloads. I've tried it from the CLI: the same, I see the Messages about restarting cbrd, apm_websso0, dynconfd, ... the diskspace should be fine: Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/vg--db--sda-set.2.root 419M 78M 315M 20% / devtmpfs 3.9G 4.0K 3.9G 1% /dev tmpfs 3.9G 2.3M 3.9G 1% /dev/shm tmpfs 3.9G 2.2M 3.9G 1% /run tmpfs 3.9G 0 3.9G 0% /sys/fs/cgroup /dev/mapper/vg--db--sda-set.2._usr 5.0G 4.0G 761M 85% /usr /dev/mapper/vg--db--sda-set.2._config 2.1G 1.4G 626M 69% /config /dev/mapper/vg--db--sda-set.2._var 2.9G 1.3G 1.5G 47% /var none 3.9G 19M 3.9G 1% /var/tmstat prompt 4.0M 28K 4.0M 1% /var/prompt /dev/mapper/vg--db--sda-dat.appdata 25G 961M 23G 5% /appdata /dev/mapper/vg--db--sda-dat.share 20G 5.9G 13G 32% /shared none 3.9G 30M 3.9G 1% /shared/rrd.1.2 /dev/mapper/vg--db--sda-dat.log 2.9G 180M 2.6G 7% /var/log none 3.9G 0 3.9G 0% /var/loipc /dev/loop0 298M 298M 0 100% /var/apm/mount/apmclients-7182.2019.923.1603-4727.0.iso any Ideas, where to look for? another virtual F5 updatet the same Version without problems
F5 Software Upgrade (14.1.0.6) UNABLE TO INSTALL IMAGE
Hey Guys!!!!! So I have done many software code upgrades in my life but I am having issues while upgrading from 12.1.4 to 14.1.0.6 & I am wondering if you guys could possibly help me. I have tried pulling the image via SCP from my desktop to the F5, tried using Curl and pulling the image from the F5, & also tried to import via GUI. When pulling the image I can see the ISO file under the intended directory (/shared/images) but I can't seem to figure out why the BIP-IP won't let me install the new ISO file I have pulled & ran a MD5 checksum on. Please any suggestions are appreciated. # Successful MD5 Checksum [root@1034180-O3-F5EC:Active:Standalone] images # md5sum --check BIGIP-14.1.0.6-0.0.9.iso.md5 BIGIP-14.1.0.6-0.0.9.iso: OK # Pulled Image [root@1034180-O3-F5EC:Active:Standalone] images # ls | grep 14.1.0.6 BIGIP-14.1.0.6-0.0.9.iso BIGIP-14.1.0.6-0.0.9.iso.md5 # Not able to install new Image (Only showing current ISO Image but no 14.1.0.6 image....) root@(1034180-O3-F5EC)(cfg-sync Standalone)(Active)(/Common)(tmos)# install sys software image Options: create-volume Configuration Items: BIGIP-12.1.4.0.0.8.iso Cheers, Chase Woodard Mantra Networking Consulting | Rackspace HostingF5 platform EoSD and Software EoSD is different. Which one need to use?
Hi We use F5 2000s with version 15.1.x From platform EoSD, It's already expired but from software EoSD. it's still available question is Which one should I use? If i use WAF and I believe attack signature will release if EoSD is still available...... question is right now will my attack signature still update? 2 what is different?
Installation of 14.1.2.6 fails
Hi All, We have two customers which are trying to install 14.1.2.6 on a partition prior to upgrade from 14.1.2.5. But the installation fails right away with the following erros in /var/log/liveinstall.log *** Live install start at 2020/07/06 18:08:23 *** info: tm_install::BootLoader::BootLoader_mboot_sync_from_old_conf -- Configurations match. info: Daemon-driven execution indicated by ENV variable. info: Repository tm_install version/release is 2.12.0.6/4.0 info: System tm_install version/release is 2.12.0.6/4.0 info: Platform id is C117 /dev/sdd: No medium found sfdisk: cannot open /dev/sdd for reading info: Basic disk format validation passed. info: >++++ result: info: mount: /dev/mapper/vg--db--sda-set.2._usr is already mounted or /mnt/tm_install/30655.GyI1Fy/usr busy info: /dev/mapper/vg--db--sda-set.2._usr is already mounted on /usr info: /dev/mapper/vg--db--sda-set.2._usr is already mounted on /opt/.sdm/usr info: /dev/mapper/vg--db--sda-set.2._usr is already mounted on /opt/.sdm/lib info: /dev/mapper/vg--db--sda-set.2._usr is already mounted on /opt/.sdm/lib64 info: >---- error: status 8192 returned by command: mount -oro /dev/vg-db-sda/set.2._usr /mnt/tm_install/30655.GyI1Fy/usr 2>/dev/null info: >++++ result: info: umount: /mnt/tm_install/30655.GyI1Fy/shared: not mounted info: >---- error: status 8192 returned by command: umount /mnt/tm_install/30655.GyI1Fy/shared Terminal error: Could not access configuration source; sda, 2 *** Live install end at 2020/07/06 18:08:27: failed (return code 2) *** I could not find anything related in the F5 knowledge base articles. Customer already tried to delete an create a partition again, but this did not solve the issue. Anyone else facing the same issue? Anyone has a solution? Regards, Martijn
Software upgrade Host Hypervisor and VCMP's planning
Hi All, I am working for a company which asked me to plan a software upgrade of their Big-IP Platform 10250v (D113) which is a cluster of 2 devices in Active/Passive mode. They have the Host running on release of v13.1.0 (released 19/12/2017) and their VCMP's (5 in total) in a mix of v13.1.0.8 (released 26/06/2018) and v14.1.2.2 (released 14/11/2019). I looked up the details and at this moment their platform is as of 21st of April 2020 in EoNSS State which means no upgrade to v16x anymore in the near future but v15.1.x is supported. So far not a problem and I proposed to bring the full cluster to the latest release of v14.1.x first and in a next phase to v15.1.x so they can benefit of the latest security stuff and on long term support release to be compatible as long as possible on this platform (they wan't to look for a replacement in 2022 but not sooner). Now their remark was that the HostHypervisoris not parsing any traffic and only hosting the VCMP's so they don't see the need on upgrading that platform and only want to focus on the VCMP's. In the documentation I found it's perfectly OK to do this as long as you're running anything from v11.4.1 HF3 - v15.1.0.11.3.0 on the Host and same for the Guest. F5 however recommends running the most recent version on both Host and VCMP. So my question is now is if anyone has an ideahow I could"convince/proof"that the Host upgrade is preferred as well? In the release notes there is the huge list of improvements but nothing specific in regards Host vs VCMP. For now I plan to do the VCMP's only but would like to do the Host as well.Error when downloading from downloads.f5.com
I was given a task to update our F5 Viprion's software version this weekend. However, upon checking for the latest software version on F5's downloads website, I came across an error which is: Export Compliance Check - Failure All downloadable files are presented with this error when I tried to download.
Understanding LTM folder in configuration
https://support.f5.com/kb/en-us/solutions/public/13000/600/sol13649.html A Sync-Only device group must be associated with a folder other than the / or /Common folders. Sometimes it's confusing to understand the folder concept in LTM. It seems related to partition and device group. Can anyone help me to understand this ?F5 update check issue
We have "Update check" Enabled on F5 and its weekly schedule but in same page it is showing. Why it is saying last update was on 2014? Last Checked Version11.6.0.0.0.401 Latest Update CheckFri Dec 26 04:02:09 EST 2014 (Automatic) Available UpdateSoftware is up-to-date. Available HotfixHotfix-BIGIP-11.6.0.2.0.405-HF2 iso installation file Geo Location Software Version Last Checked Version1.0.1-20140703.99.0 Latest Update CheckFri Dec 26 04:02:09 EST 2014 (Automatic) Available Updateip-geolocation-1.0.1-20141204.119.0 End User Diagnostics (EUD) Software Version Last Checked Version2.6.0.8.0 Latest Update CheckFri Dec 26 04:02:09 EST 2014 (Automatic) Available UpdateEUD_T-2.6.0.9.0.isoRed Herring: Hardware versus Services
In a service-focused, platform-based infrastructure offering, the form factor is irrelevant. One of the most difficult aspects of cloud, virtualization, and the rise of platform-oriented data centers is the separation of services from their implementation. This is SOA applied to infrastructure, and it is for some reason a foreign concept to most operational IT folks – with the sometimes exception of developers. But sometimes even developers are challenged by the notion, especially when it begins to include network hardware. ARE YOU SERIOUSLY? The headline read: WAN Optimization Hardware versus WAN Optimization Services. I read no further, because I was struck by the wrongness of the declaration in the first place. I’m certain if I had read the entire piece I would have found it focused on the operational and financial benefits of leveraging WAN optimization as a Service as opposed to deploying hardware (or software a la virtual network appliances) in multiple locations. And while I’ve got a few things to say about that, too, today is not the day for that debate. Today is for focusing on the core premise of the headline: that hardware and services are somehow at odds. Today is for exposing the fallacy of a premise that is part of the larger transformational challenge with which IT organizations are faced as they journey toward IT as a Service and a dynamic data center. This transformational challenge, often made reference to by cloud and virtualization experts, is one that requires a change in thinking as well as culture. It requires a shift from thinking of solutions as boxes with plugs and ports and viewing them as services with interfaces and APIs. It does not matter one whit whether those services are implemented using hardware or software (or perhaps even a combination of the two, a la a hybrid infrastructure model). What does matter is the interface, the API, the accessibility as Google’s Steve Yegge emphatically put it in his recent from-the-gut-not-meant-to-be-public rant. What matters is that a product is also a platform, because as Yegge so insightfully noted: A product is useless without a platform, or more precisely and accurately, a platform-less product will always be replaced by an equivalent platform-ized product. A platform is accessible, it has APIs and interfaces via which developers (consumer, partner, customer) can access the functions and features of the product (services) to integrate, instruct, and automate in a more agile, dynamic architecture. Which brings us back to the red herring known generally as “hardware versus services.” HARDWARE is FORM-FACTOR. SERVICE is INTERFACE. This misstatement implies that hardware is incapable of delivering services. This is simply not true, any more than a statement implying software is capable of delivering services would be true. That’s because intrinsically nothing is actually a service – unless it is enabled to do so. Unless it is, as today’s vernacular is wont to say, a platform. Delivering X as a service can be achieved via hardware as well as software. One need only look at the varied offerings of load balancing services by cloud providers to understand that both hardware and software can be service-enabled with equal alacrity, if not unequal results in features and functionality. As long as the underlying platform provides the means by which services and their requisite interfaces can be created, the distinction between hardware and “services” is non-existent. The definition of “service” does not include nor preclude the use of hardware as the underlying implementation. Indeed, the value of a “service” is that it provides a consistent interface that abstracts (and therefore insulates) the service consumer from the underlying implementation. A true “service” ensures minimal disruption as well as continued compatibility in the face of upgrade/enhancement cycles. It provides flexibility and decreases the risk of lock-in to any given solution, because the implementation can be completely changed without requiring significant changes to the interface. This is the transformational challenge that IT faces: to stop thinking of solutions in terms of deployment form-factors and instead start looking at them with an eye toward the services they provide. Because ultimately IT needs to offer them “as a service” (which is a delivery and deployment model, not a form factor) to achieve the push-button IT envisioned by the term “IT as a Service.”
