[c-nsp] ISSU on SXF -> SXI

[Daniska, Tomas]

I have experienced ISSU SXI2 to SXI2a on four VSSs, worked liked a
charm, two times a second or so blackout. But then, 2->2a is nothing
major... 

--

deejay


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
> bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jason Shearer
> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 3:55 PM
> To: Rob Shakir; Phil Mayers
> Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ISSU on SXF -> SXI
> 
> I haven't tried ISSU with our VSS pairs but this is about what I
> expected.  Too many caveats to risk it, eh?
> 
> Jason
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Shakir [mailto:rjs at eng.gxn.net]
> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 8:48 AM
> To: Phil Mayers
> Cc: Jason Shearer; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ISSU on SXF -> SXI
> 
> 
> On 12 Feb 2010, at 12:29, Phil Mayers wrote:
> 
> > * The old and new image are not ISSU-compatible (different major
> releases or feature sets) - in which case an RPR upgrade is the best
> you can do.
> >
> > * The old and new images are ISSU compatible, and the linecard
> software has not changed. In this case, the linecards do not need to
be
> restarted, and downtimes of 0-3 seconds can be achieved because it's
> basically just an SSO switchover.
> >
> > * The old and new images are ISSU compatible but the linecard
> software is different, so the linecards need to be restarted into the
> new image - this can be a faster, warm boot (if the linecard has
enough
> RAM) or a slower, cold boot (if not)
> >
> > I think that's about right?
> 
> This seems quite accurate to me.
> 
> Our experience of ISSU has been terrible. We've found multiple bugs
> related to it, and have found that -- in general -- we're much better
> off in terms of service disruption with a "classic" upgrade (upgrade
> secondary, reload peer, force failover, etc).
> 
> Cisco advised us that it is unlikely that ISSU on 7600/6500 will meet
> our requirements, and hence we are better off doing classic upgrades.
> We've taken their advice, and will not be trying it again. I think
it's
> suited for deployments where you have 30+ boxes that are identical in
> terms of configuration, and hardware, but in the SP environment (like
> us), the variance of boxes means that it's just not worthwhile.
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> Rob
> 
> --
> Rob Shakir                      <rjs at eng.gxn.net>
> Network Development Engineer    GX Networks/Vialtus Solutions
> ddi: +44208 587 6077            mob: +44797 155 4098
> pgp: 0xc07e6deb                 nic-hdl: RJS-RIPE
> 
> This email is subject to: http://www.vialtus.com/disclaimer.html
> 
> 
> *** NOTICE--The attached communication contains privileged and
> confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, DO
NOT
> read, copy, or disseminate this communication. Non-intended recipients
> are hereby placed on notice that any unauthorized disclosure,
> duplication, distribution, or taking of any action in reliance on the
> contents of these materials is expressly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please delete this information
in
> its entirety and contact the Amedisys Privacy Hotline at 1-866-518-
> 6684. Also, please immediately notify the sender via e-mail that you
> have received this communication in error. ***
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/