WSO UEM 2005 issues with on-prem?

[JoeBeaty]

I'm getting ready to upgrade from 1907 and was wondering if anyone has upgraded to to 2005 on-prem.  If you have upgraded, did you experience any issues. 

I'm upgrading to get to the latest version and also resolve an issue where the VMWare Tunnel (via the UAG) will lose it credentials every 6 months and stop working.  Also, there was an issue where the tunnel settings page wouldn't load because of a similar issue.

I could go to 2001 but will be in the same boat soon enough where I need to upgrade.

Any feedback is appreciated.

Joe Beaty

[JoeBeaty]

I also have those old folders.  I would consult with support before you delete them since they contain services and website detail...

Like Aaron said, the older installers could probably be deleted but I would error on the side of caution.

[RichB2u2]

Our on-premise upgrade from 1907 to 2005, and then 20.5.0.10 (2005 update 10) went well. Thanks for the tip on updating the DB to 2001 first!

The 2005 upgrade guide (https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-Workspace-ONE-UEM/2005/WS1_Upgrade.pdf) obviously had someone do a find and replace when updating the guide and didn't really read the result. For example, under section 6 on "PostUpgrade Validation," on page 21 under "Verify Workspace ONE UEM Services Are Running" it says

"Workspace ONE UEM Services is at the top of the services list in alphabetical order. Each of these services start with Workspace ONE in the name." Previously the upgrade guide made sense since the actual services installed still say "AirWatch" instead! This is how it should still read today, at least in my upgraded system:

"AirWatch Services are at the top of the services list in alphabetical order. Each of these services start with AirWatch in the name."

This mistake also exists in the "validate GEM Functionality" later in the document.

[chengtmskcc]

I used to download and saved the PDF to my iPad so I could read on the go without Internet. Like you said though, sometimes the texts are inaccurate and thus it's best to refer to the online version.

[RichB2u2]

The same problem exists in the online information too:  Verify the Upgrade They have not reviewed the information there either! This statement is entirely wrong:  "At the top of the services list, all Workspace ONE UEM Services are displayed in alphabetical order. Each service starts with Workspace ONE UEM in the name."

[RichB2u2]

And this page (Verify Workspace ONE UEM Services Are Running ) is wrong too. "Workspace ONE UEM Services is at the top of the services list in alphabetical order. Each of these services start with Workspace ONE in the name."

[HimanshuMishra]

Hello All,

I will upgrade WS1 from 1907 to 2005(20.5.0.17) this week. Those who are running 2005, are you guys experiencing any significant issues ?

I read somewhere that internal applications sometimes dont install and launcher does not work correctly on 2005. Any feedback on 2005 ?

Thanks!

[KevinKrumm]

Works fine no issues here. Just follow the upgrade guide.

[RichB2u2]

Here are some of the issues I've discovered after upgrading from 1907 to 2005:

• The new purchased application deployment process takes longer to load
• App deployment requires a configuration name which is a new extra requirement
• Editing Education Classes results in an error which we were told to ignore. The changes appear to happen in the console but they don't reach the iPads. Cannot delete an existing class. ongoing work item: AAPP-9598. They say it is fixed in version 2006 which is not available on-premise yet!

• Device Scheduler service crashes so no tasks are automatically running! I have to manually restart the service often. Open ticket not solved. See this other forum discussion:  Scheduler not running

[MarkSchwantje]

I noticed in my 2005 UAT environment that when I go to Device, Device Details, Apps, the apps are always sorted by the "Assignment Status" column, which isn't helpful. I want the apps sorted by name by default, just like they used to be.

[AaronWhittaker]

We attempted to do our upgrade over the weekend and to say that it failed miserably would be an understatement. We were attempting to do a side by side upgrade using new servers in staging mode using the AWSTAGEAPP=true switch. We couldn't get any of the services to start on the new servers after we did the database upgrade (Database upgraded fine, did the upgrade to 2001, patched to the highest 2001, then did the 2005 install and patch)

Did any of you try the side by side upgrade or did you all do in place?

[chengtmskcc]

Was the plan to upgrade to better hardware and/or newer OS?

Assuming you are using a load balancer like F5 or Citrix Netscaler, I would instead set up the existing version on the new servers. Then, decommission the old server(s) and confirm that your devices remain connected just fine with the new servers. Then upgrade your entire environment to the newer version.

[AaronWhittaker]

Same hardware and OS.

As it was described to us by VMWare, doing the side by side has less downtime as 95% can be done prior to the outage window, and there are a few issues that are present if you do an in-place upgrade. Specifically the cache on the DS not clearing correctly if you have been doing in-place since 9.x. So that was why we were going to do the side by side.

[AaronWhittaker]

We ended up doing an in-place upgrade, everything was done and complete in 3 hours with no issue. Don't think we will be trying the side by side again any time soon.