Anil, let me see if I understand your perspective by stating it this way: If cases where 100% uptime is a requirement, users are almost always running a disaster recovery site. It could be active/active or active/standby but there are already at least 2 clusters with current copies of the data. If an upgrade goes badly, the clusters can be downgraded one at a time without loss of availability. This is because we ensure compatibility across the wan protocol.
Is that correct? Anthony > On Apr 22, 2020, at 10:43 AM, Anilkumar Gingade <aging...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >>> Rolling downgrade is a pretty important requirement for our customers >>> I'd love to hear what others think about whether this feature is worth > the overhead of making sure downgrades can always work. > > I/We haven't seen users/customers requesting rolling downgrade as a > critical requirement for them; most of the time they had both an old and > new setup to upgrade or switch back to an older setup. > Considering the amount of work involved, and code complexity it brings in; > while there are ways to downgrade, it is hard to justify supporting this > feature. > > -Anil.
