Re: Out-of-date RBD client libraries

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 2:46 PM, J David <j.david.lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Are long-running RBD clients (like Qemu virtual machines) placed at
> risk of instability or data corruption if they are not updated and
> restarted before, during, or after such an upgrade?

No, we try very hard to ensure forward and backwards compatibility.
However, since firefly is EOL and our testing capacity is finite, I
don't believe we perform any direct tests between firefly clients and
jewel clusters.

> If so, what are the potential consequences, and where in the process
> should they be upgraded to avoid those consequences?

In general, I would recommend upgrading the librbd clients after the
cluster is fully upgraded. It really shouldn't matter unless you are
attempting to use new CRUSH map / RBD features without the necessary
backing support in the cluster. Assuming your VM environment is
properly set up, you can use live migration to transparently upgrade
the running librbd version within VMs.

[1] http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/releases/

-- 
Jason
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com



[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux