Skip to main content
M
mmuth1-Visitor
1-Visitor
May 15, 2015
Question

Getting ready to upgrade to Windchill PDMLink 10.2

  • May 15, 2015
  • 13 replies
  • 3892 views

I'm starting down the path of upgrading our PDMLink installation from 9.1 to 10.2. A couple of questions have popped up as I start looking at the documentation.

  1. Has anyone tried running PDMLink 10.2 M030 using Oracle 11.2.0.3? The software matrix says that Oracle versions of 11.2.0.4 or greater are supported, but we won't be there until later in the year (in time to support the production upgrade). I'm wondering what issues I might run into if I run 10.2 M030 against Oracle 11.2.0.3
  2. Does the version of Apache shipped with PDMLink 10.2 support encrypted passwords? I'm told the lack of this support was a primary driver for using IIS as our web server, so if it now handles encrypted passwords I can re-evaluate that decision.

Mary-Ann

13 replies

B
BryanRuppert1-Visitor
1-Visitor
May 15, 2015

Hi Mary-Ann,

  1. We've run 11.2.0.3 on our test servers for a month or so with 10.2 M030 and didn't see any problems. We have since upgraded them to 11.2.0.4 to make sure we're using what PTC recommends for when we do the production upgrade. Since our current production is running 10.1 M030 it supports 11.2.0.4 so we were able to upgrade that one ahead of time and it only took 1 hour of downtime. I'm not sure whether 9.1 supports it so that might not be something you can do - you'd have to check the software matrices for your build of 9.1.
  2. I'm not sure what you mean by encrypted passwords. We run Apache in https so I don't think anything is sent unencrypted. Passwords are stored in the LDAP or your enterprise directory server. Maybe that wasn't the case with 9.1 - I'm not sure.

Bryan

M
mmuth1-VisitorAuthor
1-Visitor
May 15, 2015

Bryan,

In 9.1, there were some passwords saved in clear text in Apache property files. This didn't make our security folks too happy 🙂 But it sounds like there are no clear text passwords saved in property files anymore. Is that right?

Mary-Ann

B
BryanRuppert1-Visitor
1-Visitor
May 15, 2015

I see what you mean. I believe everything is encrypted after 10.0. I just took a look on PTC's site and found this:

  • Passwords in properties files are encrypted by default in Windchill 10.0 and later
  • Encrypted properties will display the value encrypted.<PropertyName> in the property file

If you edit a properties file manually (not recommended by PTC but still done a lot) you could put a plain-text password in there but you are supposed to change passwords using xconfmanager and it will automatically encrypt them for you.

Here's a reference CS document: https://support.ptc.com/appserver/cs/view/solution.jsp?n=CS117247

B
BenLoosli23-Emerald III
23-Emerald III
May 15, 2015

9.1 can run 11.2.0.3 as that is what I upgraded to last December before going to Windchill 10.0m040 in April.

We receieved a notice from Oracle that 11g was going to maintenance mode witha 20% increase in maintenance fees effective January 1, 2016!!

Have you considered going to 12c for your Oracle version since it is supported on Windchill 10.2 m020 and higher?

The 11g increase in fees has caused my management to consider pushing us to 10.2 with 12c later this year.

I do want to see what PTC is going to call X-26, will it be 10.3 or 11? Hopefully we will know more next month in Nashville.

M
mmuth1-VisitorAuthor
1-Visitor
May 15, 2015

If only we could get IT to go to Oracle 12c! At least we'll be on 11.2.0.4 before we go to production with 10.2 M030.

B
BryanRuppert1-Visitor
1-Visitor
May 15, 2015

The last info I read on this was that you needed to already be on 10.2 M020+ with Oracle 11G in order to upgrade Oracle to 12c. Then you could just export from 11 and import into 12. That's one reason we're going to 11.2.0.4 to begin with. The other reason is that we can have our existing 10.1 M030 database already at 11.2.0.4 so when we go to 10.2 M030 there are no oracle changes. After a while we can consider the 12c upgrade.

Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement