Skip to main content

The Patch Cycle

The patch cycle starts again, this time with a bit of urgency.  A 'patch now' recommendation has hit the streets for what seems to be an interesting Windows RPC bug.

What does 'patch now' mean this time? Hopefully it means a planned, measured and tested patch deployment, but at an accelerated schedule.

It's a Microsoft patch, and that's a good thing.  The routine of monthly Microsoft security patches has been honed to a fine art in most places, making Windows OS patches by far the simplest and most trouble free of the platforms that we manage. This one appears to be no exception, at least so far.

Just for grins I drew up a picture of what a typical Microsoft Windows patch cycle looks like. The patch kits show up once a month. Most months have at least one 'important' patch, so most monthly patches get applied. Life is easier if you can fit the patch cycle into a one month window, just because the probability of missing a patch or patching out of order is greatly reduced, even if the WSUS toolkit simplifies the process to the point where it's pretty foolproof.

The Microsoft Windows patch cycle typically looks something like this:


It's more or less a month long cycle that sometimes drags out to more than a month, and occasionally even drags on far enough that we roll two months into one. We deviate from the linear plan somewhat, because we have servers that manage the infrastructure that we patch sooner, and we have less critical applications that we patch early, leaving the most critical applications for last. There are also obnoxious, clueless application vendors that don't support patched servers, so some of those get held back also.

Once a year or so, a critical vulnerability shows up. In an extreme case, the patch cycle follows pretty much the same path, but with an accelerated time line, something like this:


That's a fast time line, but in Windows-land the process is practiced often enough that even an accelerated time line is fairly low risk. In this strange world practice makes perfect, and nobody has more practice at patching that Windows sysadmins.

Compare this to another platform, one without the well honed, routine, trouble free patching system that Microsoft has developed.

There are a whole bunch of those to choose from, so let's randomly pick Oracle, just for the heck of it. Here's what a typical Oracle patch time line looks like:


Can you see the difference?

Maybe that's why so many DBA's don't patch Oracle.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Cargo Cult System Administration

“imitate the superficial exterior of a process or system without having any understanding of the underlying substance” --Wikipedia During and after WWII, some native south pacific islanders erroneously associated the presence of war related technology with the delivery of highly desirable cargo. When the war ended and the cargo stopped showing up, they built crude facsimiles of runways, control towers, and airplanes in the belief that the presence of war technology caused the delivery of desirable cargo. From our point of view, it looks pretty amusing to see people build fake airplanes, runways and control towers  and wait for cargo to fall from the sky.The question is, how amusing are we?We have cargo cult science[1], cargo cult management[2], cargo cult programming[3], how about cargo cult system management?Here’s some common system administration failures that might be ‘cargo cult’:Failing to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient. A daily backup is necessary, b…

Ad-Hoc Verses Structured System Management

Structured system management is a concept that covers the fundamentals of building, securing, deploying, monitoring, logging, alerting, and documenting networks, servers and applications. Structured system management implies that you have those fundamentals in place, you execute them consistently, and you know all cases where you are inconsistent. The converse of structured system management is what I call ad hoc system management, where every system has it own plan, undocumented and inconsistent, and you don't know how inconsistent they are, because you've never looked.

In previous posts (here and here) I implied that structured system management was an integral part of improving system availability. Having inherited several platforms that had, at best, ad hoc system management, and having moved the platforms to something resembling structured system management, I've concluded that implementing basic structure around system management will be the best and fastest path to …

The Cloud – Provider Failure Modes

In The Cloud - Outsourcing Moved up the Stack[1] I compared the outsourcing that we do routinely (wide area networks) with the outsourcing of the higher layers of the application stack (processor, memory, storage). Conceptually they are similar:
In both cases you’ve entrusted your bits to someone else, you’ve shared physical and logical resources with others, you’ve disassociated physical devices (circuits or servers) from logical devices (virtual circuits, virtual severs), and in exchange for what is hopefully better, faster, cheaper service, you give up visibility, manageability and control to a provider. There are differences though. In the case of networking, your cloud provider is only entrusted with your bits for the time it takes for those bits to cross the providers network, and the loss of a few bits is not catastrophic. For providers of higher layer services, the bits are entrusted to the provider for the life of the bits, and the loss of a few bits is a major problem. The…