cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
722
Views
0
Helpful
4
Replies
Kazushige Sato
Beginner

CSCuc35326 - B200-M3 / B22-M3 / B420-M3 - Blade Discovery Failures. HW not supported

Hello experts,

Our DC chassis hits this issue, and B200M3 blades in the chassis are not discoveried normaly. 

Software version is 2.0(3c) at chassis (UCSM, IOM), 2.0(5c) and 2.1(3a) at blades. 

Our customer would not like to upgrade UCSM version. 

Just catalog file updating will resolve this issue ? 

Best regards,

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions
jomartin
Cisco Employee

Hi,

Defect CSCuc35326 properly adds the missing entries in the catalog, but unfortunately it is not the only change you need. While investigating this issue we found that there were still other issues when the catalog only was upgraded. That ended up with an internal defect, CSCuc45686, which corrected those other conditions found during internal testing. As documented in CSCuc35326, an updrade to 2.0(5a) will definitely resolve the issue completely.

I understand that the customer would not like to upgrade the UCSM version, but be aware that the current scenario is explicitely cautioned against it in our release-notes. Cisco especifically sayss that there shouldn't be a mix of host, UCSM and FI/IOM firmware. They should be running all components from the same bundle version/level. In the 2.1(x) release this improved by allowing a N-1 support. The 2.1 release notes have a table that clearly explains the supported combinations :

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/unified_computing/ucs/release/notes/UCS_28313.html#wp152679

View solution in original post

4 REPLIES 4
jomartin
Cisco Employee

Hi,

Defect CSCuc35326 properly adds the missing entries in the catalog, but unfortunately it is not the only change you need. While investigating this issue we found that there were still other issues when the catalog only was upgraded. That ended up with an internal defect, CSCuc45686, which corrected those other conditions found during internal testing. As documented in CSCuc35326, an updrade to 2.0(5a) will definitely resolve the issue completely.

I understand that the customer would not like to upgrade the UCSM version, but be aware that the current scenario is explicitely cautioned against it in our release-notes. Cisco especifically sayss that there shouldn't be a mix of host, UCSM and FI/IOM firmware. They should be running all components from the same bundle version/level. In the 2.1(x) release this improved by allowing a N-1 support. The 2.1 release notes have a table that clearly explains the supported combinations :

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/unified_computing/ucs/release/notes/UCS_28313.html#wp152679

Kazushige Sato
Beginner

Thank you for the answer,

Our customer has already AC chassis and sevral blades running with 2.0(3c) in production.  They would like to add another DC chassis and some blades, so they strongly would like to keep their version. 

They will downgrade new DC chassis (IOM) and blades (CIMC, Adaptors, BIOS) to 2.0(3c), as same as their current. 

Some workarounds (a or b) in CSCuc45686 would work in my case ?

Be aware that CSCuc45686 was found internally and that some of the work-arounds are not optimal for a production environment (I wouldn't delete all configuration/database on prodcution gear ). You could try to re-ack a blade after the catalog was updated, but I have my doubts on this resolving the issue.

It is also good to point out that if the customer doesn't upgrade then they will face the same problem every time they add a new blade. I'm also not sure what will happen during a power outage. If all goes down and come backs down... does those blades require a work-around to get operational?

I understand that upgrades are usually not fun and take time, but with this issue and their discrepancy on host vs infra versions and other fixes related to memory (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/ts/fn/636/fn63651.html) I feel the customer should take a close look and bite the bullet now to minimize any chance of outages/issues in the future.

Thank you for the reply,

I understand neccessity of latest version and that there is no general workaround. 

Anyway, thank you again.