Installer stalled for hours?

[SirArion]

Ran the setup for 4.0 on our premium Lansweeper server, the SQL database is hosted on another server.

Setup seems to have stalled at this point and I am unsure if I should kill this or just let it go?? Been running for 4hours against a db of 2.5gb.

"Setup is updating your database to the latest version"
Currently running sql code:
-- end check all constraints
-- PRINT 'Changing computername keyfield'
DECLARE @computername nvarchar(300)
DECLARE @TEL int
DECLARE @TEMPSQL nvarchar(4000)
SET @TEL = 1
Declare Allcomputers cursor for
select computername from tblcomputers

open Allcomputers
fetch next from Allcomputers into @computername
WHILE @@fetch_status = 0
BEGIN
SET @TEMPSQL = N'update tblcomputers set computername = ' + '''' + cast(@TEL as varchar) + '''' + ' where computername = ' + '''' + @computername + ''''
EXEC sp_executesql @TEMPSQL

SET @TEL = @TEL + 1
FETCH NEXT FROM Allcomputers INTO @computername
END

CLOSE Allcomputers
DEALLOCATE Allcomputers

[Anonymous]

I'm running into the same waiting...
My database was only 400Mb and about 800 computers. I hope it ends soon or I'll have to quit the upgrade.

[wierzbowski]

I thought that I would report back with the result of the "delete all machines" work-around...

Deleting the 3000 machines took about 3 hours. It started slowly but got faster.

I left 12 machines in the database as they are in a workgroup and don't get picked up by active scanning.

The upgrade then went though with barely a pause and the new console is now up and running. Its been up for about 20 minutes and so far there are 200 machines back visible plus the various switches and routers that the new console can display. Its taken about 3 1/2 hours in total from end to end.

The reports are all present but need a small edit so that the correct machine name column is included - I know this is noted elsewhere on the forum. All other settings have transferred over.

All in all I'm happy and super impressed by the new Lansweeper Console. Well done guys.

[sticky]

Yikes - just got around to checking the progress.

Have currently done 862/9429... it is increasing, so it hasn't completely stalled like I first thought.

Been 68 hours so far. At the current rate I calculate it will take about a month to complete!

Looks like I'm restoring from backup. Is there likely to be a revised upgrade procedure released or should I wipe the computers table (as suggested by wierzbowski) and try again? Like wierzbowski, I'm more concerned about preserving custom reports etc rather than computer history.

[Hemoco]

sticky wrote:
Like wierzbowski, I'm more concerned about preserving custom reports etc rather than computer history.

The wiping the computers will be the fastest way.
Try shrinking/re-organizing your database first and set your recovery mode to "simple"

[jgreeno]

Same issue here... 4hrs and counting on a 600MB DB.

[poweld1]

Now done 1786 / 6131 rows, I reckon it will take at least another 5 days at this rate.

[Hemoco]

poweld1 wrote:
Now done 1786 / 6131 rows, I reckon it will take at least another 5 days at this rate.

Perhaps a reorganize and database shrink before the upgrade might do the trick.
On my development machine I upgrade about 1000 computers in 20 minutes.

[poweld1]

Lansweeper wrote:

poweld1 wrote:
Now done 1786 / 6131 rows, I reckon it will take at least another 5 days at this rate.

Perhaps a reorganize and database shrink before the upgrade might do the trick.
On my development machine I upgrade about 1000 computers in 20 minutes.

I can't now as the upgrade is still running. I don't mind waiting another 5 days, unless there is another way to do this??

Up to 2324 /6131 rows this morning.

[KHabershon]

So essentially you're starting over and losing any "remote" machines that might have come in and logged into the network and had been scanned.

Am I understanding this correctly?

[Hemoco]

KHabershon wrote:
So essentially you're starting over and losing any "remote" machines that might have come in and logged into the network and had been scanned.

Am I understanding this correctly?

You don't need to do this, it was a suggestion from wierzbowski