<div dir="ltr">Hello Atin,<div><br></div><div>I think having rolling upgrade or in-service upgrade is always a plus point and sometime it is even necessity. It will be really good if we can add in-service upgrade option.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Bipin Kunal</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Joe Julian <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:joe@julianfamily.org" target="_blank">joe@julianfamily.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">A agree with all of it. It all makes perfect sense and will get us in a better position to move forward successfully.<br>
<br>
As an architect, I hate things that affect my SLA, so the downtime will be difficult and expensive. Anything that can be done to keep that downtime to the shortest number of seconds possible would be a great place to put some focus.<br>
<br>
As the guy hanging out on IRC, I have no problem telling people that they'll need downtime for this upgrade. If you could figure out some way to put safeguards that prevent people from breaking their production cluster because they didn't read the release notes (happens frequently), that would be much appreciated.<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On 10/06/2015 10:32 PM, Atin Mukherjee wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi All,<br>
<br>
Over the course of the design discussion, we got a chance to discuss<br>
about the upgrades and backward compatibility strategy for Gluster 4.0<br>
and here is what we came up with:<br>
<br>
1. 4.0 cluster would be separate from 3.x clusters. Heterogeneous<br>
support won't be available.<br>
<br>
2. All CLI interfaces exposed in 3.x would continue to work with 4.x.<br>
<br>
3. ReSTful APIs for all old & new management actions.<br>
<br>
4. Upgrade path from 3.x to 4.x would be necessary. We need not support<br>
rolling upgrades, however all data layouts from 3.x would need to be<br>
honored. Our upgrade path from 3.x to 4.x should not be cumbersome.<br>
<br>
<br>
Initiative wise upgrades strategy details:<br>
<br>
GlusterD 2.0<br>
------------<br>
<br>
- No rolling upgrade, service disruption is expected<br>
- Smooth upgrade from 3.x to 4.x (migration script)<br>
- Rollback - If upgrade fails, revert back to 3.x, old configuration<br>
data shouldn't be wiped off.<br>
<br>
<br>
DHT 2.0<br>
-------<br>
- No in place upgrade to DHT2<br>
- Needs migration of data<br>
- Backward compat, hence does not exist<br>
<br>
NSR<br>
---<br>
- volume migration from AFR to NSR is possible with an offline upgrade<br>
<br>
We would like to hear from the community about your opinion on this<br>
strategy.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Atin<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gluster-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org" target="_blank">Gluster-users@gluster.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gluster-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org" target="_blank">Gluster-users@gluster.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>