Hi Quanah,
Thanks for the helpful answers. Since the upgrade seems relatively
straightforward, I'll work on upgrading to 2.4.42 soon.
On 8/15/15 2:40 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
For migrations between minor or major releases, 2.3->2.4 for
example) that would be the correct procedure. For point releases it is
almost never necessary. Exceptions being:
1) for BDB based backends, if the BDB major or minor version that
OpenLDAP is linked to is different
2) early releases of slapd-mdb and current slapd-mdb, as there was an
unavoidable db format change. I forget exactly when but I believe
somewhere on the 2.4.2x releases.
Outside of that, a full reload is generally pointless, although it can
reclaim unused space in the DB created by object deletions.
--Quanah
On Aug 15, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Mahmudul Hasan <cs.mahmud(a)gmail.com
<mailto:cs.mahmud@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Anytime I upgrade to new version I export the database using slapcat,
> and after upgrading re-import the data. If I am not wrong that is the
> recommended practice
> (
http://www.openldap.org/doc/admin24/maintenance.html).
>
> Thanks,
> Mahmudul Hasan
> System Support
> University of Lethbridge, AB.
>
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount
> <quanah(a)zimbra.com <mailto:quanah@zimbra.com>> wrote:
>
> 2.4.42 is a bug fix release for significant issues that were in
> 2.4.41. No new features were added. Primarily for bugs in
> slapd-mdb and the lmdb library itself. I would upgrade to 2.4.42.
>
> As for your question about different versions there is no issue
> replicating between 2.4.39 and 2.4.41 or .42
>
> I would note that Howard checked in some potential syncrepl
> optimizations for slapd-mdb into the master branch this week that
> may help with your replication delays if you want to test them on
> top of 2.4.42.
>
> --Quanah
>
>
> On Aug 15, 2015, at 6:58 AM, Brian Wright <brianw(a)marketo.com
> <mailto:brianw@marketo.com>> wrote:
>
>>
>> We have a 2-way master production cluster actively running
>> 2.4.39. We are wanting to upgrade to 2.4.41 (we haven't yet
>> internally certified 42). What is the best practices around
>> upgrading this cluster while keeping at least one of the servers
>> online? Is it replication-safe to have one node on 2.4.39 and
>> one on 2.4.41 for a short period?
>>
>> If not, I can temporarily comment out the syncrepl statements
>> until both servers are on 2.4.41 and then reenable replication
>> after both are upgraded. We can live with short inconsistency
>> period between the servers during the upgrade of the servers
>> until we can resume replication. Also, is the DB format fully
>> compatible between these two versions or would it be better to
>> reload the DB new from an LDIF backup on 2.4.41? Is there an
>> upgrade doc somewhere that discusses these issues?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Brian Wright*
>> *Sr. UNIX Systems Engineer *
>> 901 Mariners Island Blvd Suite 200
>> San Mateo, CA 94404 USA
>> *Email *brianw(a)marketo.com <mailto:brianw@marketo.com>
>> *Phone *+1.650.539.3530 <tel:%2B1.650.539.3530>**
>> *****www.marketo.com <
http://www.marketo.com/>*
>>
>> <Marketo.jpg>
>>
>>
>
--
Signature
*Brian Wright*
*Sr. UNIX Systems Engineer *
901 Mariners Island Blvd Suite 200
San Mateo, CA 94404 USA
*Email *brianw(a)marketo.com <mailto:brianw@marketo.com>
*Phone *+1.650.539.3530**
*****www.marketo.com <