Thanks to both of you for your answers. So I understand that the best practice would be to keep all nodes on the same Ceph version number. You mention here the "recommended (and most tested) order" which order is that? Using cephadm with containers wouldn't the orchestrator command below take care of everything without having me to worry about any upgraded order/path? ceph orch upgrade start --ceph-version 15.2.11 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, April 23, 2021 8:52 AM, Janne Johansson <icepic.dz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Den fre 23 apr. 2021 kl 08:45 skrev Eugen Block eblock@xxxxxx: > > > you can't really avoid having different versions in a cluster, think > > about an update/upgrade. Usually it's not an issue, but I would > > recommend to have that state for as short as possible. Just a recently > > a customer complained about inconsistent objects on a regular basis > > although all disks were healthy. They run a multi-site RGW and after > > updating all nodes to the same version they haven't faced those > > inconsistencies anymore. > > There were some bug(s) relating to rgw's mis-caching negative answers > in recent Octopus, so you might have just managed to get past that > when you upgraded the rgws. > Still, I agree that it seldom poses a problem if you do it in the > recommended (and most tested) order. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > May the most significant bit of your life be positive. > > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx </icepic.dz@xxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |