Right, the default wait time between continuing the upgrade is 8 minutes. If the veto happens mid-upgrade and you catch it before the 8 min passes it will continue. If you don’t, the upgrade will pause and you’ll need to resume it once the veto has been overridden.
I was always using the GUI, but found it quicker to use cli and bypass the repeated checks and “are you sure” messages. But, yes, GUI is perfectly fine. If you kick off the upgrade from cli, you can still go to the GUI and follow the process, pause, resume, etc.
tmac <tmacmd@gmail.com> wrote:
It depends 😁
If you catch it early enough, the automated process seemingly continuously checks the process and pauses until the giveback completes.
I missed it one time for an hour (went to lunch). It took between 3-10 minutes but it detected and continued automagically.
Anymore these days, I try to kick it off from the GUI. It is just too easy not to. Not like the old days with the hours-worth of manually checks and the process to upgrade which took 1-2 hours depending on node count.
I have not seen it, but I think there is a check in the GUI to continue if something odd happens. Cannot attest to what ODD may be as I have not personally seen anything.
--tmac
Tim McCarthy, Principal Consultant
On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 5:20 PM Philbert Rupkins <philbertrupkins@gmail.com> wrote:
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 <cse@hey.com> 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 <philbertrupkins@gmail.com> 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
> Toasters@teaparty.net
> https://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
_______________________________________________
Toasters mailing list
Toasters@teaparty.net
https://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters