On Wed, 2023-02-01 at 09:02 +0100, hajo.lo...@gmx.de wrote: > Hello, > > > > > While the Pacemaker versions support rolling upgrades, those > Corosync > > versions do not, so you'll have to do the detach-and-reattach > method. > > > The main reason to do a new cluster instead is if you want to do > some > > testing before making it live. > > -- > > Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> > > > thanks for your answer. So upgrading detached nodes will result in > downtime of haproxy and may disclose some other surprises... > I think building a new cluster is the best way to avoid downtimes. In > my case i could switch by DNS to new clusterservers and achive a > mostly seemless transition of use. > > Thank you, > Hajo
The DNS transition is a good plan since it gives you a chance to do some testing beforehand. (It's a good idea to lower the TTLs on your DNS records to something like 1 hour, at least as far ahead of time as the current TTL value.) However I don't think there would be any downtime with a detach-and- reattach. Only Corosync and Pacemaker are stopped in that scenario, all other services remain running in an unmanaged mode. -- Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> _______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/