On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 14:44 +0200, Micha Ballmann via samba wrote:> Is it possible to Mix Samba 4.8.2 with Samba 4.7.7? > > I have three domain controller (up to 10000 users) running on Samba 4.7.7. > > I want to kill all samba processes of Dc1 and do all necessary steps for an upgrade to version 4.8.2. Dc2 and Dc2 still running and providing. > > After a reboot of the upgraded server, (Dc1) is the replication still working? Gpos are working? > > I cant shutdown all domain controller for the same time, and upgrade them "offline" step by step!If possible, do the upgrade by joining each DC to the domain, rather than upgrading them offline. If you keep upgrading in-place you miss out on some features we only enable on fresh databases, like encrypted secrets (4.8) and sorted links (4.7). As has become amply clear of late, in-place upgrades, while tested as part of our 'make test' are clearly are not as tested as they should be. In any case, replication between 4.7 and 4.8 shouldn't be a problem. I hope this clarifies things, Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett https://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team https://samba.org Samba Development and Support, Catalyst IT https://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba
On Mon, 21 May 2018 09:21:42 +1200 Andrew Bartlett via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:> On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 14:44 +0200, Micha Ballmann via samba wrote: > > Is it possible to Mix Samba 4.8.2 with Samba 4.7.7? > > > > I have three domain controller (up to 10000 users) running on Samba > > 4.7.7. > > > > I want to kill all samba processes of Dc1 and do all necessary > > steps for an upgrade to version 4.8.2. Dc2 and Dc2 still running > > and providing. > > > > After a reboot of the upgraded server, (Dc1) is the replication > > still working? Gpos are working? > > > > I cant shutdown all domain controller for the same time, and > > upgrade them "offline" step by step! > > If possible, do the upgrade by joining each DC to the domain, rather > than upgrading them offline. If you keep upgrading in-place you miss > out on some features we only enable on fresh databases, like encrypted > secrets (4.8) and sorted links (4.7).Well you learn something new everyday ;-) Is this documented anywhere ? I also think this is a bad idea, anything new should just work without having to go through the 'demote' and 'join' loop, as this appears to have its own problems.> > As has become amply clear of late, in-place upgrades, while tested as > part of our 'make test' are clearly are not as tested as they should > be.That could be an understatement ;-)> > In any case, replication between 4.7 and 4.8 shouldn't be a problem.Unfortunately it seems it is. Rowland
On 5/21/2018 3:31 AM, Rowland Penny via samba wrote:> On Mon, 21 May 2018 09:21:42 +1200 > Andrew Bartlett via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 14:44 +0200, Micha Ballmann via samba wrote: >>> Is it possible to Mix Samba 4.8.2 with Samba 4.7.7? >>> >>> I have three domain controller (up to 10000 users) running on Samba >>> 4.7.7. >>> >>> I want to kill all samba processes of Dc1 and do all necessary >>> steps for an upgrade to version 4.8.2. Dc2 and Dc2 still running >>> and providing. >>> >>> After a reboot of the upgraded server, (Dc1) is the replication >>> still working? Gpos are working? >>> >>> I cant shutdown all domain controller for the same time, and >>> upgrade them "offline" step by step! >> If possible, do the upgrade by joining each DC to the domain, rather >> than upgrading them offline. If you keep upgrading in-place you miss >> out on some features we only enable on fresh databases, like encrypted >> secrets (4.8) and sorted links (4.7). > Well you learn something new everyday ;-) > Is this documented anywhere ? > I also think this is a bad idea, anything new should just work without > having to go through the 'demote' and 'join' loop, as this appears to > have its own problems. > >> As has become amply clear of late, in-place upgrades, while tested as >> part of our 'make test' are clearly are not as tested as they should >> be. > That could be an understatement ;-) > >> In any case, replication between 4.7 and 4.8 shouldn't be a problem. > Unfortunately it seems it is. > > Rowland > >Wouldn't a demote and join also unnecessarily deplete the RID pool faster? -James
Am 2018-05-21 um 09:31 schrieb Rowland Penny via samba:> On Mon, 21 May 2018 09:21:42 +1200 > Andrew Bartlett via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 14:44 +0200, Micha Ballmann via samba wrote: >>> Is it possible to Mix Samba 4.8.2 with Samba 4.7.7? >>> >>> I have three domain controller (up to 10000 users) running on Samba >>> 4.7.7. >>> >>> I want to kill all samba processes of Dc1 and do all necessary >>> steps for an upgrade to version 4.8.2. Dc2 and Dc2 still running >>> and providing. >>> >>> After a reboot of the upgraded server, (Dc1) is the replication >>> still working? Gpos are working? >>> >>> I cant shutdown all domain controller for the same time, and >>> upgrade them "offline" step by step! >> >> If possible, do the upgrade by joining each DC to the domain, rather >> than upgrading them offline. If you keep upgrading in-place you miss >> out on some features we only enable on fresh databases, like encrypted >> secrets (4.8) and sorted links (4.7). > > Well you learn something new everyday ;-) > Is this documented anywhere ? > I also think this is a bad idea, anything new should just work without > having to go through the 'demote' and 'join' loop, as this appears to > have its own problems. > >> >> As has become amply clear of late, in-place upgrades, while tested as >> part of our 'make test' are clearly are not as tested as they should >> be. > > That could be an understatement ;-) > >> >> In any case, replication between 4.7 and 4.8 shouldn't be a problem. > > Unfortunately it seems it is.I am uncertain now again ;-) keep 4.7.7 or not for now? Prepped DC1 by doing backups and db-check, but I am not sure * if to keep DC2 on 4.7.7 for a day then * if to demote/rejoin DC2 before or after 4.8 upgrade etc My setup is smaller than the mentioned >10000 users, but shouldn't break either ;-) Stefan