On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:14:46AM +1100, Bron Gondwana wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015, at 12:05 AM, k...@rice.edu wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 11:36:36PM +1100, Bron Gondwana wrote: > > > TODO: we need to nail down what's in 3.0 (you'll see a theme here over > > > the next two lots) > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I just wanted to keep a note in the feature request list about supporting a > > way to > > update from version 2.3.x to a current release without the need for an > > unconstrained > > I/O storm caused by the forced mailbox format upgrades. We are still using > > version > > 2.3 because an update to 2.4 would cause mailboxes to be converted on first > > access. > > If we could upgrade the replica first and then make it the primary after the > > upgrade had completed and then upgrade the replica to complete the process, > > we > > could do it. Alternatively, if the new version could use the old version of > > the > > mailbox, we could then control the format update I/O usage. > > > > Regards, > > Ken > > (stuck on version 2.3) > > You'll be pleased to know, there is no IO storm in 2.5.0, even upgrading from > 2.3. Instead, > you need to run "reconstruct -V max" to upgrade your indexes. Until you > upgrade them, > you lose delayed expunge (it expunges all mailboxes instantly when you first > open them, > because that's too complex to support otherwise). > > Bron. >
Hi Bron, That is super news! Thank you, thank you, thank you. Regards, Ken
