Network Management System Upgrade Staggering via Criticality Scoring
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
In a hybrid cloud environment, network management system upgrades pose challenges due to potential software package mismatches between on-premises private clouds and public clouds, leading to fragmentation and increased maintenance overhead, with criticality differences among customers affecting the impact of service interruptions.
Innovation Solution
A network management system upgrade method that classifies NMS deployments and network nodes by criticality scores, allowing for staggered upgrade timelines and strategic node prioritization, using an NMS control service to coordinate forced upgrades and ensure stability before impacting high-criticality customers.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Productivity
If network management system upgrades are performed simultaneously across all deployments, then upgrade speed is improved, but system stability deteriorates due to potential software package mismatches and fragmentation
Solution Approach 1:
The patent segments the network management system deployments into different groups based on criticality scores. High-criticality deployments are upgraded separately from low-criticality deployments, allowing the system to maintain stability while progressing through upgrades. This segmentation prevents software package mismatches between different deployment groups and enables controlled rollouts.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent performs preliminary actions by first upgrading low-criticality deployments before upgrading high-criticality deployments. This staged approach allows the system to test and validate software packages in less critical environments first, confirming stability before applying upgrades to more critical systems, thereby preventing widespread issues.
2Reliability
If upgrades are delayed for high-criticality customers, then system stability is improved, but upgrade timeline is extended
Solution Approach 1:
The patent applies local quality by assigning different upgrade timelines and criticality levels to different customer deployments based on their specific needs and operational importance. High-criticality customers receive extended timelines and additional validation steps, while low-criticality customers proceed with standard upgrade schedules. This differentiated approach maintains service continuity for critical customers without unnecessarily delaying non-critical upgrades.
3Stability of the object's composition
If forced upgrade mechanism is implemented, then software version consistency is improved, but maintenance complexity increases due to criticality assessment requirements
Solution Approach 1:
The patent implements a self-service mechanism where the system automatically assesses criticality scores and determines appropriate upgrade timelines for each deployment based on predefined criteria. This automated criticality assessment reduces manual maintenance complexity while ensuring software version consistency across the network. The system serves itself by making intelligent decisions about upgrade scheduling without requiring extensive manual intervention.
Data Source
AI summary
In an example implementation consistent with the features disclosed herein, network management system deployments with a large operational footprint are given a longer grace period before they are forced to upgrade than network management system deployments with a small operational footprint. Criticality scores for the network management system deployments are calculated based on the operational footprints of the network management system deployments. The network management system deployments are grouped into criticality groups based on the criticality scores for the network management system deployments. The network management system deployments are forced to upgrade within timelines that are based on the criticality groups in which the network management system deployments are grouped.