Honest question, what exactly is it about the current implementation that fails to deliver on this?
Is it something in the design of the upgrade process? Is it that the upgrade takes too long to be done during any reasonable maintenance window? Is it that you have to test the new version before you roll it into production? Is it <your answer goes here>> -Ryan On Oct 27, 2016, at 12:02 PM, Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com<mailto:avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com>> wrote: If only there was an upgrade process wherein you install the new version to an inactive partition, and then could switch to the new version when you're ready. /sarcasm But seriously though, everyone in this thread is essentially coming up with their own clever way of replicating the promise Cisco failed to deliver on, which is performing your upgrades during production on the inactive partition and then switching versions in a maintenance window. If they would have only held themselves to a higher standard, we wouldn't need this complex of an alternate solution. On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Ryan Huff <ryanh...@outlook.com<mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com>> wrote: Matthew is correct, copying is listed as "Supported with Caveats" at: http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Unified_Communications_VMware_Requirements; The caveat being found at http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Unified_Communications_VMware_Requirements#Copy_Virtual_Machine The VM needs to be powered down first and the resulting VM will have a different MAC address (unless it was originally manually specified); so you'll need to rehost the PLM if it is co-res to any VM that you copy. Where I have seen folks get into trouble with this is where a subscriber is copied, and the user mistakenly thinks that by changing the IP and hostname it becomes unique and can be added to the cluster as a new subscriber. I have also seen users make a copy of a publisher and change the network details of the copy, thinking it makes a unique cluster and then wonders why things like ILS wont work between the two clusters (and it isn't just because the cluster IDs are the same). Having said all of that, I would NEVER do this in production ... maybe that is just me being cautious or old school, but that is just me. Even without changing network details on the copy, I have seen this cause issues with Affinity. At the very least, if you travel this path I would make sure that the copy runs on the same host and even in the same datastore. === An alternative path === Admittedly, this path is longer and there is a little more work involve but is the safer path, IMO and is what I would trust for a production scenario. 1.) Create a private port group on the host. If the cluster is on multiple hosts, span the port group through a connecting network to the other hosts but DO NOT create an SVI anywhere in the the topology for that DOT1Q tag (remembering to add a DOT1Q tag on any networking devices between the two hosts and allowing on any trunks between the two hosts). 2.) Upload Cisco's CSR1000V to the host. If you're not familiar with the product it is at the core and unlicensed, a virtual router with three interfaces by default. Out of the box, it is more than enough to replicate DNS/NTP on your private network which is all you'll need. Assign the private port group to the network adapters and configure DNS and NTP (master 2) on this virtual router. 3.) Build out a replica of your production UC cluster on the private network. 4.) Take a DRS of the production UC apps and then put your SFTP server on the private network and do a DRS restore to the private UC apps. 5.) Upgrade the private UC apps and switch your port group labels on the production/private UC apps during a maintenance window. Thanks, Ryan ________________________________ From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> on behalf of Matthew Loraditch <mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com<mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 3:01 PM To: Tommy Schlotterer; Scott Voll; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Not supported I'm sure..... but what do you think? I can’t see any reason it wouldn’t be supported honestly. Offline Cloning is allowed for migration/backup purposes. I actually did the NAT thing to do my BE5k to 6K conversions. Kept both systems online. The only thing I can think to be thought of is ITLs, does an upgrade do anything that you’d have to reset phones to go back to the old servers if there are issues? I don’t think so, but not certain. Matthew G. Loraditch – CCNP-Voice, CCNA-R&S, CCDA Network Engineer Direct Voice: 443.541.1518<tel:443.541.1518> Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/heliontech?ref=hl> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/HelionTech> | LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies?trk=top_nav_home> | G+<https://plus.google.com/+Heliontechnologies/posts> From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>] On Behalf Of Tommy Schlotterer Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 2:49 PM To: Scott Voll <svoll.v...@gmail.com<mailto:svoll.v...@gmail.com>>; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Not supported I'm sure..... but what do you think? I do a similar, but supported process. I take DRS backups and then restore on servers in a sandbox VLAN. Works well. Make sure you check your phone firmware and upgrade to the current version before the cutover or all your phones will have to upgrade on cutover. Also make sure you don’t change Hostname/Ip addresses in the sandbox as that will cause your ITL to regenerate and cause issues with phone configuration changes after cutover. Thanks Tommy Tommy Schlotterer | Systems Engineer Presidio | www.presidio.com<http://www.presidio.com/> 20 N. Saint Clair, 3rd Floor, Toledo, OH 43604 D: 419.214.1415<tel:419.214.1415> | C: 419.706.0259<tel:419.706.0259> | tschlotte...@presidio.com<mailto:tschlotte...@presidio.com> From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Scott Voll Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 2:43 PM To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net> Subject: [cisco-voip] Not supported I'm sure..... but what do you think? So my co-worker and I are thinking about upgrades. we are currently on 10.5 train and thinking about the 11.5 train. What would be your thoughts about taking a clone of every VM. CM, UC, UCCx, CER, PLM, placing it on another vlan with the same IP's. NAT it as it goes onto your network so it has access to NTP, DNS, AD, etc. do your upgrade on the clones. Then in VM ware shut down the originals,and change the Vlan (on the clones) back to the production vlan for your voice cluster. it would be like a telco slash cut. 10 minute outage as you move from one version to the other. Thoughts? Scott This message w/attachments (message) is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or proprietary. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender, and then please delete and destroy all copies and attachments. Please be advised that any review or dissemination of, or the taking of any action in reliance on, the information contained in or attached to this message is prohibited. _______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip _______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
