Thanks for sharing, I was not aware of that. I must admit, it’s been a while since we upgraded our own or our customer’s clusters to Reef, we usually try to stay near supported releases. Anyway, I don’t have a clear recommendation which Quincy version to upgrade to. We skipped it as did almost all of our customers (several of them came from SUSE Enterprise Storage which ended with version Pacific, so they upgraded to Reef). One other customer was on Quincy (came from Octopus) until recently, they didn’t have any issues with Q, although I don’t recall the exact versions of Q they had in use. I can try to look it up tomorrow if that helps. Zitat von J-P Methot via ceph-users <ceph-users@ceph.io>:

From the "Known issues" section of the Reef 18.2.8 release notes (https://ceph.io/en/news/blog/2026/v18-2-8-reef-released/) :

"During QA for v18.2.8, it was found that there was a bug for upgrades from Pacific to Reef. Pacific OSDs (and other Ceph daemons) were still using a deprecated connection feature bit that was adopted to indicate a Reef OSD. This can cause a OSD_UPGRADE_FINISHED warning before all OSDs are actually upgraded to Reef. There are no known issues associated with Pacific and Reef OSDs interoperating where Pacific OSDs are "advertising" Reef compatibility; however, out of an abundance of caution, we no longer recommend upgrading from Pacific to Reef directly."

On 4/15/26 16:02, Eugen Block via ceph-users wrote:

...

Why is it not recommended to upgrade from Pacific to Reef? We’ve done that multiple times, I’m quite surprised by that statement.

Zitat von J-P Methot via ceph-users <ceph-users@ceph.io>:

...

Hi,

We have a fairly old Ceph Pacific cephadm cluster that we would like to upgrade to an active release. Since upgrading from Pacific to Reef is not recommended, we will need to upgrade to Quincy first. However, there seems to be bugs with Pacific to Quincy upgrades for several Quincy releases. Would it be best to upgrade Quincy 17.2.8, which has a bluestore regression bug, or to 17.2.7 which seems to also have caused issues to other users? I understand that 17.2.9 is not obtainable, as there was no container image built for it. We like to run our ceph versions for a few weeks inbetween upgrades, so the cluster needs to remain stable.

-- Mes salutations distinguées | Best regards Jean-Philippe MÉTHOT (Il, Lui | He/Him) Administrateur Infra sénior | Senior Infra administrator PlanetHoster

AVIS: Ce courriel est confidentiel et peut être l'objet de secret professionnel. Tout usage ou diffusion de celui-ci par une personne autre que son destinataire est illégal. Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez nous en aviser sans délai et le supprimer de votre système.

This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system. _______________________________________________ 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

-- Mes salutations distinguées | Best regards Jean-Philippe MÉTHOT (Il, Lui | He/Him) Administrateur Infra sénior | Senior Infra administrator PlanetHoster

AVIS: Ce courriel est confidentiel et peut être l'objet de secret professionnel. Tout usage ou diffusion de celui-ci par une personne autre que son destinataire est illégal. Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez nous en aviser sans délai et le supprimer de votre système.

This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system. _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io