cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
MaxPat
Level 10

McAfee Risk Advisor 2.6.1 upgrade

Hello, im trying to install the McAfee Risk Advisor 2.6.1 over an existing 2.6 installation.

The installation does not complete returning this error:

*******************************************************************

Setup has encountered the error:

     FAILURE: In LaunchAppAndWait while trying to run the following program:

For more information, search for the error in the MRA-SRV260-Install-MSI.LOG file, located in the logged-on user’s Temp directory.

(Note: Close Setup before searching this log file to ensure all data is written to it.)

Depending on the error, more information may be available in the log files listed below.

In the logged-on user’s Temp directory:

MRA-SRV260-CommonSetup.log

******************************************************************

Also, on the epo log entries im getting this message:

*****************************************************************

Upgrade Extension

Installation error:upgrade-sql:Trying to override old definition of task MRA-Versionupgrade-from-2.5:upgrade-from-2.6:BUILD FAILEDC:\PROGRA~1\McAfee\EPOLIC~1\server\extensions\installed\CARMA\2.6.1.170\install.xml:394: The following error occurred while executing this line:C:\PROGRA~1\McAfee\EPOLIC~1\server\extensions\installed\CARMA\2.6.1.170\install.xml:410: java.sql.SQLException: Cannot resolve the collation conflict between "SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS" and "Latin1_General_CI_AS" in the equal to operation.Total time: 18 seconds

************************************************************************

Any suggestions?

Regards.

Max.

0 Kudos
1 Reply
arocker
Level 9

Re: McAfee Risk Advisor 2.6.1 upgrade

There is a database collation mismatch noted in the last error in your post. This is usually the result of running a DB collation other than the required SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS. I'm not sure why 2.6 would have installed on a server with an unsupported collation, but my guess would be that the 2.6.1 version of the extension uses syntax that will only work properly on the required collation.

0 Kudos