Great, thanks Ben! The primary configuration my colleagues and I will be vetting is the 3.0.x -> 4.0 path (implicitly, 2.1 -> 3.0 -> 4.0). From a quality + safety perspective we will be ensuring that it’s a smooth ride for folks who opt for this route; though no major concerns on my part with the project recommending 2.1 -> 3.11 -> 4.0 aside from not having experienced it myself.
> On Oct 11, 2020, at 12:47 AM, Ben Slater <ben.sla...@instaclustr.com> wrote: > > Just to add to Mick's point, we (Instaclustr) have also been running and > recommending 3.11.x by default. It's currently by far the most common > version in our managed fleet and our last 3.0.x cluster will likely be > upgraded shortly. 3.11.x is also our recommendation for consulting and > support customers. I'd therefore support Mick's recommendation (really > based on our experience with and confidence in 3.11.x rather than being > able to point to specific issues off hand) that 2.*->3.11.x->4.0 is the > preferred upgrade path. We will do testing on 3.11.x to 4.0 upgrade but I > can't see us doing any work on 3.0 to 4.0. > > Cheers > Ben > > --- > > > *Ben Slater**Chief Product Officer* > > <https://www.instaclustr.com/platform/> > > <https://www.facebook.com/instaclustr> <https://twitter.com/instaclustr> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/instaclustr> > > Read our latest technical blog posts here > <https://www.instaclustr.com/blog/>. > > This email has been sent on behalf of Instaclustr Pty. Limited (Australia) > and Instaclustr Inc (USA). > > This email and any attachments may contain confidential and legally > privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy > or disclose its content, but please reply to this email immediately and > highlight the error to the sender and then immediately delete the message. > > > On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 at 06:42, Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> "3.11 performs close to parity with 2.1/2.2. 3.0 does not. If we >> recommend >>> people upgrade from 2.1 -> 3.0 -> 4.0, we are asking them to have a >> cluster >>> in a regressed performance state for potentially months as they execute >>> their upgrade." >>> >>> Did I get anything wrong here Mick? ^ >>> >> >> >> That's correct Josh. >> >> From tickets like those listed, and from experience, we recommend folk >> avoid 3.0 altogether. This has only been made more evident by witnessing >> the benefits from 3.0 → 3.11 upgrades. >> >> My recommendation remains 2.*→3.11→4.0. And I don't believe I'm alone. >> Though if a user was already on 3.0, then I would (of course) recommend an >> upgrade directly to 4.0. >> >> I feel like I'm just splitting straws at this point, since we have accepted >> (folk willing to help with) both paths to 4.0, and I can't see how we stop >> recommending 2.*→3.11 upgrades. >>
