I don't know for sure, but RGWs use of object classes may have something to do with this recommendation. Brett On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 2:53 AM Eugen Block <eblock@nde.ag> wrote:
Hi Thomas,
I agree, from my point of view this shouldn't be an issue. And although I usually stick to the documented process, especially with products like SUSE Enterprise Storage (which was decommissioned), there are/were customers who had services colocated, for example MON, MGR and RGW on the same nodes. Before cephadm when they upgraded the first MON node they automatically upgraded the RGW as well, of course. And I haven't seen any issues with that, but maybe other admins/operators have. I assume you have multiple (dedicated) RGWs running, so you can upgrade only one and see if it still works properly after the upgrade, then move on to the next if it does.
Regards, Eugen
Zitat von Thomas Byrne - STFC UKRI <tom.byrne@stfc.ac.uk>:
Hi all,
The Ceph documentation has always recommended upgrading RGWs last when doing a upgrade. Is there a reason for this? As they're mostly just RADOS clients you could imagine the order doesn't matter as long as the cluster and RGW major versions are compatible. Our basic testing has shown no obvious issues (with Pacific RGWs and a Nautilus cluster FWIW).
I'm asking because in our case it would be handy to upgrade our gateway infrastructure first, not for any new RGW features, but just for scheduling the operations.
Is this a terrible idea?
If it helps, this is the first step in a Nautilus -> Pacific -> Reef plan, with no cephadm.
Thanks, Tom _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io