Re: Automated vs Manual NDU

Thanks for the info.  I'm familiar with the vetoed giveback due to
CIFS - we hit that during unplanned failover events.  Good to know I
can expect that during upgrades as well.

Are you initiating the upgrade from the GUI?   Also, when you override
the CIFS veto, do you then need to issue a "cluster image
resume-update" or resume from the GUI somewhere?

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 3:37 PM Scott Eno <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Really like the automated myself.  So much better than the old 7-mode days.
>
> Only issue I repeatedly hit is on giveback, aggr giveback will get vetoed due to CIFS sessions.  Never understood why it's fine to break CIFS sessions on takeover, but everything comes to a halt on giveback.
>
> Have to go to CLI and force aggr giveback with override-veto switch.
>
> Philbert Rupkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Toasters,
>
> What's your preference for non-disruptively upgrading a switch based
> ONTAP 9 cluster - automated NDU or manual (rolling) NDU?
>
> Happy to hear of both positive and negative experiences, if any.
>
> The cluster in question consists of 3 HA pairs so the automated
> upgrade will default to rolling. The general recommendation is to use
> the automated procedure but there are concerns about lack of control,
> especially in the event of issues. Each HA pair in the cluster hosts
> critical prod workloads.
>
> No access to a test cluster so there isn't much opportunity to build
> confidence in the automated procedure ahead of time. I am aware of
> the ability to pause the automated upgrade.
>
> Leaning toward manual at the moment due to lack of exposure to the
> automated process.
>
> Cheers,
> Phil
> _______________________________________________
> Toasters mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters