CentOS7 and RHEL 7 are not supported with Storage Scale 5.2.# RHEL 9.4 5.14.0-427.24.1.el9 has been tested.
Printed page 9 of the gpfsclusterafaq.psf makes the 5.2.0.1 stuff pretty clear to me, but yes a better representation could be done. -Jackie Nunes > On Aug 8, 2024, at 10:31 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Send gpfsug-discuss mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of gpfsug-discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [EXTERNAL] Upgrade Scale from 5.1.2-8 to 5.2.0-1 > (Peter Childs) > 2. Re: [EXTERNAL] Upgrade Scale from 5.1.2-8 to 5.2.0-1 > (Peter Childs) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 16:27:01 +0000 > From: Peter Childs <[email protected]> > To: gpfsug main discussion list <[email protected]>, gpfsug > main discussion list <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] [EXTERNAL] Upgrade Scale from 5.1.2-8 to > 5.2.0-1 > Message-ID: > > <du0pr07mb851373a0090bfee9a6395acea4...@du0pr07mb8513.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Last I checked 5.1.9 did not support 9.4 and only 5.2.0-1 worked. IBM do like > breaking the gplbin when they push out a new version of RHEL, Hopefully it > will get better now IBM and Redhat are the same company, but who knows. > > A Full Support matrix would be helpful on this one please rather than just a > note in an FAQ. > > I'm fairly sure 5.1.9 has the same issue with the same bug anyway. Anyway > 5.2.0-1 should mean we get all the latest features, which is good. > > I'm tempted to agree that the statement in the docs that says... > > "In multicluster environments, it is recommended to upgrade the home cluster > before the cache cluster especially if file audit logging, watch folder, > clustered watch, and AFM functions are being used." > > Agrees with you. And suggest that upgrading the NSD Servers early is a good > idea, but that statement is a little misleading given the term "Cache" with > "Multicluster" has no meaning, and it might be better to use the word "Remote" > > However upgrading the servers is always the most risky step given our ESS > Servers have a memory leak from the last time we upgraded them that as yet > Nvidia have not said is fixed. (But might or might not be better (or worse)) > (Yes the leak was tracked down to MOFED) > > > > > Peter Childs > > > > > ________________________________________ > From: gpfsug-discuss <[email protected]> on behalf of > Bolinches, Luis (WorldQuant) <[email protected]> > Sent: 08 August 2024 11:39 AM > To: gpfsug main discussion list; gpfsug main discussion list > Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] [EXTERNAL] Upgrade Scale from 5.1.2-8 to 5.2.0-1 > > [You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this > is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of QMUL. Do not click links, scan > QR codes or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the > content is safe. > > > Hi > > Have you gave a though to jump to TLS 5.1.9? instead of PTF0 of a new > release 5.2? > > Seems that you are valuing stability over bleeding edge features and that is > supposedly what TLSs are for. Few PFTs on the 5.1.9 already, without knowing > the exact issue that you are hitting, worth the try. > > I would go first with quorum, fs mgr, nsd servers, gateways order but is like > vi emacs question > > -- > Yst?v?llisin terveisin/Regards/Saludos/Salutations/Salutacions > > Luis Bolinches > WQ Aligned Infrastructure > "If you always give you will always have" -- Anonymous > > https://www.credly.com/users/luis-bolinches/badges > > -----Original Message----- > From: gpfsug-discuss <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Peter > Childs > Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2024 13.23 > To: gpfsug main discussion list <[email protected]> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gpfsug-discuss] Upgrade Scale from 5.1.2-8 to 5.2.0-1 > > We are attempting to upgrade out Scale cluster which is currently running > 5.1.2-8 a rather old LTS version of scale..... To 5.2.0-1 so we can upgrade > from a rather old OS. (Otherwise known as CentOS7) > > We have an issue where by the freshly deployed nodes with 5.2.0-1 Scale is > Crashing and it looks to be caused by a bug fix since 5.1.2-8 (I suspect its > the one for hc_flash_7100841_00132_notok which is in 5.1.2-15 I think) > > Assuming once we've upgraded everything our cluster(s) will be stable again, > I'm trying to work out how to upgrade everything without causing everything > to be worse before it gets better. ie we want an upgrade to fix stuff rather > than breaking it before it works. > > I'm trying to work out when to upgrade our NSD Servers, if we need to do them > ASAP to improve the new servers running 5.2.0-1 or if we ought to leave them > till last to not cause critical kit to be unstable. > > I'm also trying to work out if its worth the effort of upgrading the old > nodes at all, as that's quite a bit of extra work.... and if 5.2.0-1 was > stable I would not be looking at upgrading them at all. > > If anyone has worked out a good order to upgrade a scale cluster then that > might help ie is it best to upgrade Quorum and NSD servers early or late > within any upgrade cycle, or leave them till last. > > Thanks > > Peter Childs > ITS Research Storage > Queen Mary University of London. > > > > _______________________________________________ > gpfsug-discuss mailing list > gpfsug-discuss at gpfsug.org > http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org > > > ################################################################################### > > The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be > > subject to legal privilege, and is intended only for the individual named. > > If you are not the named addressee, please notify the sender immediately and > > delete this email from your system. The views expressed in this email are > > the views of the sender only. Outgoing and incoming electronic communications > > to this address are electronically archived and subject to review and/or > disclosure > > to someone other than the recipient. > > ################################################################################### > > > _______________________________________________ > gpfsug-discuss mailing list > gpfsug-discuss at gpfsug.org > http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 16:27:01 +0000 > From: Peter Childs <[email protected]> > To: gpfsug main discussion list <[email protected]>, gpfsug > main discussion list <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] [EXTERNAL] Upgrade Scale from 5.1.2-8 to > 5.2.0-1 > Message-ID: > > <du0pr07mb851373a0090bfee9a6395acea4...@du0pr07mb8513.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Last I checked 5.1.9 did not support 9.4 and only 5.2.0-1 worked. IBM do like > breaking the gplbin when they push out a new version of RHEL, Hopefully it > will get better now IBM and Redhat are the same company, but who knows. > > A Full Support matrix would be helpful on this one please rather than just a > note in an FAQ. > > I'm fairly sure 5.1.9 has the same issue with the same bug anyway. Anyway > 5.2.0-1 should mean we get all the latest features, which is good. > > I'm tempted to agree that the statement in the docs that says... > > "In multicluster environments, it is recommended to upgrade the home cluster > before the cache cluster especially if file audit logging, watch folder, > clustered watch, and AFM functions are being used." > > Agrees with you. And suggest that upgrading the NSD Servers early is a good > idea, but that statement is a little misleading given the term "Cache" with > "Multicluster" has no meaning, and it might be better to use the word "Remote" > > However upgrading the servers is always the most risky step given our ESS > Servers have a memory leak from the last time we upgraded them that as yet > Nvidia have not said is fixed. (But might or might not be better (or worse)) > (Yes the leak was tracked down to MOFED) > > > > > Peter Childs > > > > > ________________________________________ > From: gpfsug-discuss <[email protected]> on behalf of > Bolinches, Luis (WorldQuant) <[email protected]> > Sent: 08 August 2024 11:39 AM > To: gpfsug main discussion list; gpfsug main discussion list > Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] [EXTERNAL] Upgrade Scale from 5.1.2-8 to 5.2.0-1 > > [You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this > is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of QMUL. Do not click links, scan > QR codes or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the > content is safe. > > > Hi > > Have you gave a though to jump to TLS 5.1.9? instead of PTF0 of a new > release 5.2? > > Seems that you are valuing stability over bleeding edge features and that is > supposedly what TLSs are for. Few PFTs on the 5.1.9 already, without knowing > the exact issue that you are hitting, worth the try. > > I would go first with quorum, fs mgr, nsd servers, gateways order but is like > vi emacs question > > -- > Yst?v?llisin terveisin/Regards/Saludos/Salutations/Salutacions > > Luis Bolinches > WQ Aligned Infrastructure > "If you always give you will always have" -- Anonymous > > https://www.credly.com/users/luis-bolinches/badges > > -----Original Message----- > From: gpfsug-discuss <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Peter > Childs > Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2024 13.23 > To: gpfsug main discussion list <[email protected]> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gpfsug-discuss] Upgrade Scale from 5.1.2-8 to 5.2.0-1 > > We are attempting to upgrade out Scale cluster which is currently running > 5.1.2-8 a rather old LTS version of scale..... To 5.2.0-1 so we can upgrade > from a rather old OS. (Otherwise known as CentOS7) > > We have an issue where by the freshly deployed nodes with 5.2.0-1 Scale is > Crashing and it looks to be caused by a bug fix since 5.1.2-8 (I suspect its > the one for hc_flash_7100841_00132_notok which is in 5.1.2-15 I think) > > Assuming once we've upgraded everything our cluster(s) will be stable again, > I'm trying to work out how to upgrade everything without causing everything > to be worse before it gets better. ie we want an upgrade to fix stuff rather > than breaking it before it works. > > I'm trying to work out when to upgrade our NSD Servers, if we need to do them > ASAP to improve the new servers running 5.2.0-1 or if we ought to leave them > till last to not cause critical kit to be unstable. > > I'm also trying to work out if its worth the effort of upgrading the old > nodes at all, as that's quite a bit of extra work.... and if 5.2.0-1 was > stable I would not be looking at upgrading them at all. > > If anyone has worked out a good order to upgrade a scale cluster then that > might help ie is it best to upgrade Quorum and NSD servers early or late > within any upgrade cycle, or leave them till last. > > Thanks > > Peter Childs > ITS Research Storage > Queen Mary University of London. > > > > _______________________________________________ > gpfsug-discuss mailing list > gpfsug-discuss at gpfsug.org > http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org > > > ################################################################################### > > The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be > > subject to legal privilege, and is intended only for the individual named. > > If you are not the named addressee, please notify the sender immediately and > > delete this email from your system. The views expressed in this email are > > the views of the sender only. Outgoing and incoming electronic communications > > to this address are electronically archived and subject to review and/or > disclosure > > to someone other than the recipient. > > ################################################################################### > > > _______________________________________________ > gpfsug-discuss mailing list > gpfsug-discuss at gpfsug.org > http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > gpfsug-discuss mailing list > gpfsug-discuss at gpfsug.org > http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org > > > ------------------------------ > > End of gpfsug-discuss Digest, Vol 149, Issue 2 > ********************************************** _______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at gpfsug.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org
