Video Screencast Help
Search Video Help Close Back
to help
New in the Rewards Catalog: Vouchers for "Symantec Technical Specialist" and "Symantec Certified Specialist" exams.

Upgrading Client vs. Fresh Install

Updated: 21 May 2010 | 5 comments
Corey Wilson's picture
0 0 Votes
Login to vote

I am curious how others have faired upgrading client versions 10.1 and 10.2 to endpoint 11 client using the upgrade method opposed to uninstalling the older client and then performing a fresh install.

I know this method is possible but is it recommended/suggested? We are only interested in deploying the anti-virus/anti-spyware porition of the product to begin with.

Thanks

Comments

AV Specialist's picture
30
Apr
2008
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

Hi
 
I recommend to uninstall SAV 10.x and then install SEP 11...
 
If you upgrade the client, the client is installed in the old path (..symantec antivirus) unlike a fresh install...
 
Kind regards,
AV Specialist
pbogu's picture
30
Apr
2008
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

I did it few times, mostly without any troubles. Sometimes some machines had trouble with upgrading remotely but I don't think they were show-stoppers. Just remember about disabling tamper protection, password for uninstallation in SAV10 before migrating to 11. You may also consider removing all scheduled scans because sometimes they are not correctly removed from registry and you will have remove them manually (I never had this problem).

Corey Wilson's picture
30
Apr
2008
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

Thanks guys.

It appears that pushing the SEP client to a machine with an existing SAV 10 client already installed and running actually uninstalls the SAV client first before the SEP client is installed. In this case I cant see how manually removing the client from the machine and then manually installing the new sep client...or even pushing it from the console after the original SAV 10 client is physically uninstalled would make a whole lot of difference? Unless I am missing something here and this process is actually simply copying the new SEP files overtop of the existing SAV client installation.

Am I wrong here? Is there something Im missing? I am more apt to try taking this approach and then simply dealing with the one off occassions where a problem may occur. My only concern here however is that I or my desktop team will not know whether the performance of the users machine is adversly effected...and if it is, is it due simply to not manually removing the existing SAV client first or is it due to the underlying architecture and changes within SEP 11 itself.

We have a rather large and dispersed user environment and I am trying to avoid the time associated with visiting each client workstation and the loss productivity that comes along with the user interuption duing these types of 'at the console' type updates.

Thoughts?

Greg Huntzinger's picture
30
Apr
2008
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

If I had it to do over again, I would certainly uninstall the 10.1 clients first.  Once I got all of my OTHER SEPM problems fixed, I found that nearly all of my clients were running two scans one after the other.  No amount of profile messing could fix that.  It turned out that the extra scan was "converted" from the 10.1 registry tree into the new endpoint tree, but the client UI couldn't see it although the scan engine could.  I ended up having to touch every machine to find and delete the extra scan.
Corey Wilson's picture
30
Apr
2008
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

Thanks for the info Greg. The way I was thinking about approaching this to avoid a similiar problem was as follows:

1) create an additional group in existing SAV 10 console and disable regularly scheduled system scans on the group
2) Move SAV 10x clients that are being prepared for migration to SEP into this group
3) Allow 24 hours for replication to these clients
4) Delete these clients from the SAV console
4) Push SEP 11 client to these clients

My thought here is that this should allow the clients enough time to remove the associated scan jobs before the sep 11 client is installed.

Maybe this wont work as intended however.