Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: [SOLVED] GroupWise 7.0.2 migration

  1. #11
    Rich Graves is offline Outstanding Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    719
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    we're a small school. only 1 zimbra, 1 clustered active/passive gw po. 400 users and resources total over next week and a half, 150 users this weekend... including 1 president, 3+ vice presidents, deans, etc. with complex interlocking calendar shares.

    rough start. with help of zimbrans in india (highly recommended), determined my strategy of parallelism was wrong. ended up causing lots of errors due to mysql and attachment text extractor/indexer contention. actual best strategy is careful watching of only 2 parallel tasks - each runs faster, giving optimal overall throughput.

    daylight savings bug on repeating appointments was *not* fixed in time for us. we hope, but are not certain, that we will be able to zmmailbox ef /Calendar and re-import just calendars. else, we will have to ask dept assistants to correct our VIPs' calendars manually.

  2. #12
    Rich Graves is offline Outstanding Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    719
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Bug 25709 - Groupwise:Mismatch in Appointment time after migration. is fixed. And zmmailbox ef/re-migrating just calendars works. :-)

    No sane IT organization would have gone forward with this migration. But that's why I work at a .edu. And Zimbra has been *crazy* supportive.

  3. #13
    Rich Graves is offline Outstanding Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    719
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Things got pretty crazy, but it all came through in the end. Users are satisfied thus far. Heck, I've got time to eat lunch and post here.

    We definitely should have started with a smaller batch than 132 accounts (more than a dozen of them > 1GB). A pilot migration of 26 accounts in February (before the DST bug came up) gave me what turned out to be a false sense of confidence. Also, while it fixed a huge number of things over 4.5.10 and 5.0.1, ZCS 5.0.2 seems to have made some convertd attachment indexing behavior (hence migration import speed) worse. Some of the convertd changes are being changed/rolled back for the upcoming 5.0.3.

    Next weekend's batch of 100-some accounts, and your experience a few weeks hence, should be much more pleasant.

    If you have the means to hire professional services to take the graveyard shift, I *highly* recommend it. It's really nice to be able to let a qualified person whose normal waking hours exactly match your normal sleeping hours take over. I'm really thankful that this isn't the weekend that the undersea cables to India broke.

  4. #14
    Rich Graves is offline Outstanding Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    719
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    See http://www.zimbra.com/forums/adminis...-exorcism.html

    I've reduced the breakage by deleting all sub-calendars with zero items. Remaining sub-calendars break lots of things.

  5. #15
    alexkelly is offline Trained Alumni
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    70
    Rep Power
    7

    Default gwcheck Details

    Rich,
    Please forward any of the gwcheck details you have. I asked our Novell admin for the output of gwcheck...and got a csv file that looks nothing like the output in your previous post w/ the perl script.

    Thanks,
    Alex

  6. #16
    snissen is offline Intermediate Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    23
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Here's how I generated the proxy report:

    1. Run a GWCheck Analyze/Fix Databases, Contents (only, no Structure, no fix), User databases (only), Verbose logging ON. It doesn't matter whether you run this from a PC with GWCheck.exe, or from the Post Office using Mailbox/Library Maintenance, but you must know where the multi-MB output file can be found. This may take more than a day to run.

    2. Using a command-line text editor, or an interactive editor capable of handling a 200MB file, do a simple string replace: Change every instance of:
    Checking user =
    to:
    Checking access on user =
    In other words, you're sticking the keyword "access" into that line.

    3. Using a grep-like utility, search for all the lines containing the word "access" in any case, and output them all to a new file. This new file will be about 0.1% the size of that first one.

    4. (Optional) Cleanup: Remove any "Checking access on user = " lines that are not followed by any ACCESS_RECORD lines. Remove any invalid duplicate "Access granted for user" lines.

    5. For interpretation of the numeric codes, see Novell TID # 10050654 . Never mind the versions of GroupWise listed at the top; the codes are still the same.

  7. #17
    Rich Graves is offline Outstanding Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    719
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    The second weekend's batch of 200 accounts was much less stressful. ZCSGroupwiseMigrationWizard-5.0.3_GA_2113.exe addressed most of the issues we've had.

    To last weekend's process I added a (cygwin) perl script that automatically parsed and recorded outcomes for individual accounts based on m2l.log, and a server-side zmmailbox script to deal with renaming /Calendar/SubCalendar and to delete some empty nuisance folders like /Documents.

    Our final batch of 40-some accounts will be done Wednesday. I'll attach some more scripts to this thread on Thursday or Friday.

  8. #18
    Rich Graves is offline Outstanding Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    719
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    There's not a lot here, but some of it is possibly useful to others:

    https://apps.carleton.edu/campus/its...dar/gw2zimbra/

  9. #19
    Rich Graves is offline Outstanding Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    719
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Another in similar vein is "I want to be able to look at Properties to see if someone has read my message." Commonly known around here as "snooping." People mourn and celebrate the loss of the "snooping" feature in equal numbers here.

    With the possible exception of delayed delivery, these are all examples of "stupid legacy features of pre-Internet workgroup mail." They only work in an environment disconnected from the Internet where it is only possible to use one particular proprietary email client.

    I'm not sure about appointment duplication. The user who noticed it was migrated weeks ago, and we didn't try re-migrating.

    We are seeing a fair amount of Bug 17509 - duplicate appointment created, as we deployed Outlook connector 5.0.2 on all desktops (over my objections).

  10. #20
    snissen is offline Intermediate Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    23
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Re: snooping -- A divergent view here, from a colleague of Rich Graves.

    Let's split this complaint up into its component parts. I believe it's absolutely justified to support delivery receipts; that is, telling the sender whether or not his mail was delivered to the destination mailbox. Given how unreliable Internet mail has been at times, this feature makes sense, and is analogous to asking the US Postal Service to send registered mail.

    As for read receipts (or deletion receipts), I can understand an argument that those violate privacy rights of the recipient. However, is this not an Internet standard in the IMAP protocols? If it's a standard, then it should be supported, regardless of our feelings about it.

    Now let's get practical: It helps work flow to know whether a message you sent was read, deleted, accepted, or declined. If paper mail had the ability to notify you of its read status, that would have been offered by the USPS long ago. Yes, you're learning something about a private action by the recipient: what they did with the message you sent. But this is someone with whom you have a relationship, so the "privacy violation" of knowing what they did with your message, is offset by the benefit of knowing the status of the relationship. I think this is justified as long as it's optional on both ends: the sender has to explicitly request read status for this message, and the recipient has to choose to respond to read status requests (an automatic setting, not an explicit action for every message).

    And the interface that works best is for the sender to return to the original message he sent and look at its status. That's exactly the GroupWise interface, and I think they got it right. The Zimbra (iCal?) approach of sending separate meeting accept/decline notices is very awkward to manage.

    Just my two cents worth... Sande

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Groupwise Migration Problems.
    By SurrealSystems in forum Migration
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-14-2007, 03:13 PM
  2. No mail imported by Groupwise Migration Wizard?
    By SteveNolan in forum Migration
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-13-2007, 10:51 AM
  3. Groupwise migration tool fails with CONNECT_ERROR
    By lustenbe in forum Migration
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-23-2007, 07:59 AM
  4. GroupWise Migration stops on message ten
    By stuartg.orion in forum Migration
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-24-2007, 09:08 PM
  5. My migration from GroupWise - any suggestions?
    By stuartg.orion in forum Migration
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-11-2007, 05:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •