[Openstack-operators] Upgrade Strategy from Essex to Folsom+

Christian Parpart trapni at gmail.com
Mon Jan 7 17:03:15 UTC 2013

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Jonathan Proulx <jon at jonproulx.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:43 AM, heut2008 <heut2008 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It isn't a must to use quantum and openvswitch,also change from
>> nova-network to quantum is really a rough work.
>> you can use  nova-network in folsom as well.  the folsom split
>>  nova-volume to cinder, so cinder is a must  to use.
> You can still use nova-volume.
> for my Essex to Folsom transition up upgraded in place keeping
> nova-network and nova-volume.  After the move to Folsom I then switched
> from nova-volume to cinder which was relatively smooth.  I kept
> nova-network since I'm using muti-host which quantum doesn't support yet.
> I have to run now but I'll try and look through my note for a more
> detailed upgrade report

Hey Jon,
That actually sounds great, really, so what would you suggest, is it
possible to first _just_ upgrade the nova-compute nodes (which only have
nova-compute on it, so no nova-api nor nova-network, just nova-compute) and
let these then-soon-to-be folsom nova-compute nodes talk to the
still-unchanged Essex controller and network node(s) -- or the other way
around ?

Many thanks,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20130107/a3acfc6e/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list