On 29 Jan 2016 19:37, "Michał Dulko" wrote:
>
> Resolution on this matter from the Cinder mid-cycle is that we're fine
> as long as we safely fail in case of upgrade conducted in an improper
> order. And it seems we can implement that in a simple way by raising an
>
On 01/20/2016 09:11 PM, Li, Xiaoyan wrote:
> @ DuncanT and @dule:
>
> I noticed from IRC log that you are discussing about c-bak upgrade, and I am
> working on this, please see following message. Hope I don't miss anything.
>
> As you know, currently c-bak and c-vol are in same nodes. c-bak
@ DuncanT and @dule:
I noticed from IRC log that you are discussing about c-bak upgrade, and I am
working on this, please see following message. Hope I don't miss anything.
As you know, currently c-bak and c-vol are in same nodes. c-bak depends on
c-vol service.
But it is not necessary that