cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
3444
Views
14
Helpful
11
Replies

Catalyst 9300 fastreload upgrade not working

Petr Nyvlt
Level 1
Level 1

Customer want to make fast reload upgrade on stack of c9300-48UXM switches.

 

Current version is 16.12.02, new version is 16.12.04.

 

This is quite small upgrade. I have not found there is some ROMMON or FPGA microcode upgrade needed, but still this fast reload upgrade fails. It reports unsupported release.

Is there a way how to find out why it failed. Is there some matrix showing what upgrades are supported in fast reload mode?

I can't find any reloadfast support documentation at all.

 

 

SWITCH#install add file flash:cat9k_iosxe.16.12.04.SPA.bin activate reloadfast commit
install_add_activate_commit: START Fri Sep 18 16:31:11 CEST 2020
Checking STP eligibility: Eligible

Checking GR compatibility:
SUCESS: Fast reload requirement pre-check
install_add_activate_commit: Adding PACKAGE
install_add_activate_commit: Checking whether new add is allowed ....

--- Starting initial file syncing ---
[1]: Copying flash:cat9k_iosxe.16.12.04.SPA.bin from switch 1 to switch 2 3 4
[2 3 4]: Finished copying to switch 2 switch 3 switch 4  
Info: Finished copying flash:cat9k_iosxe.16.12.04.SPA.bin to the selected switch(es)
Finished initial file syncing

--- Starting Add ---
Performing Add on all members
  [1] Add package(s) on switch 1
  [1] Finished Add on switch 1
  [2] Add package(s) on switch 2
  [2] Finished Add on switch 2
  [3] Add package(s) on switch 3
  [3] Finished Add on switch 3
  [4] Add package(s) on switch 4
  [4] Finished Add on switch 4
Checking status of Add on [1 2 3 4]
Add: Passed on [1 2 3 4]
Finished Add

Image added. Version: 16.12.4.0.4480
install_add_activate_commit: Activating PACKAGE
Following packages shall be activated:
/flash/cat9k-wlc.16.12.04.SPA.pkg
/flash/cat9k-webui.16.12.04.SPA.pkg
/flash/cat9k-srdriver.16.12.04.SPA.pkg
/flash/cat9k-sipspa.16.12.04.SPA.pkg
/flash/cat9k-sipbase.16.12.04.SPA.pkg
/flash/cat9k-rpboot.16.12.04.SPA.pkg
/flash/cat9k-rpbase.16.12.04.SPA.pkg
/flash/cat9k-guestshell.16.12.04.SPA.pkg
/flash/cat9k-espbase.16.12.04.SPA.pkg
/flash/cat9k-cc_srdriver.16.12.04.SPA.pkg
Not able to run this command for unsupported release 16.12.4.0.4480.1594356816..Gibraltar
FAILED: Fast reload image pre-check
FAILED: install_add_activate_commit /flash/cat9k-wlc.16.12.04.SPA.pkg /flash/cat9k-webui.16.12.04.SPA.pkg /flash/cat9k-srdriver.16.12.04.SPA.pkg /flash/cat9k-sipspa.16.12.04.SPA.pkg /flash/cat9k-sipbase.16.12.04.SPA.pkg /flash/cat9k-rpboot.16.12.04.SPA.pkg /flash/cat9k-rpbase.16.12.04.SPA.pkg /flash/cat9k-guestshell.16.12.04.SPA.pkg /flash/cat9k-espbase.16.12.04.SPA.pkg /flash/cat9k-cc_srdriver.16.12.04.SPA.pkg: Abort reloadfast install since requirement does not met

 

1 Accepted Solution

Accepted Solutions

Scott Hodgdon
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

Petr,

We do not plan to support stack fast reload (or stack Extended Fast Software Upgrade) until 17.3.2, which is targeted for November 2020. Release times are subject to change.

Cheers,
Scott Hodgdon

Senior Technical Marketing Engineer

Enterprise Networking and Cloud Group

 

View solution in original post

11 Replies 11

balaji.bandi
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame

I do not belive it will work full upgrade, personally never tried fast reload

 

since it required micro code auto upgrade, you need to upgrade normal way.

 

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/catalyst9300/software/release/16-12/release_notes/ol-16-12-9300.html

BB

***** Rate All Helpful Responses *****

How to Ask The Cisco Community for Help

Scott Hodgdon
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

Petr,

We do not plan to support stack fast reload (or stack Extended Fast Software Upgrade) until 17.3.2, which is targeted for November 2020. Release times are subject to change.

Cheers,
Scott Hodgdon

Senior Technical Marketing Engineer

Enterprise Networking and Cloud Group

 

Hi Scott,

thank you very much for the clarification.

 

I was confused by this "stacking" note in configuration guide.

The fast software upgrade feature is supported on both stacking and standalone systems.

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/catalyst9300/software/release/16-12/configuration_guide/sys_mgmt/b_1612_sys_mgmt_9300_cg/fast_software_upgrade.html

Petr,

I will send this to the documentation team to get fixed. Thank you for pointing it out, and I apologize for the confusion.

Cheers,
Scott Hodgdon

Senior Technical Marketing Engineer

Enterprise Networking and Cloud Group

im running 17.3.4:

 

switch01#sh ver | i Software
Cisco IOS XE Software, Version 17.03.04
Cisco IOS Software [Amsterdam], Catalyst L3 Switch Software (CAT9K_IOSXE), Version 17.3.4, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc3)

 

Just tried the "reload fast" command to experiment. was console-d in and it took about 3 minutes before standby console came back. it seemed like it did some sort of initial reload first, while active switch stayed up. then about 30 seconds after that, both switches appeared to reload and load IOS again simultaneously. this took about 2.5-3 minutes. I wasn't monitoring traffic so couldn't tell what actually went down and for how long. After this, the reboot log messages (interface up/down, etc.) appeared to settle down around 2 more minutes after I could login. Can you detail this reload sequence and the loss of service on one and both switches during the reload cycle? I'm trying to understand how much actual outage occurs on a downstream/upstream device, if its port-channeled equally to both stack members for example. Assume this is Layer 2 and Layer3 traffic with the stack running both vlans for Layer 2 and has SVI's doing layer 3.

 

many thx!

 

Hello Scott,

A few years and releases later, I am wondering if documentation is accurate and keyword ´reloadfast´ during a software upgrade is now supported in Cat 9300. Just saying this because having all pre-requisites (advantage license, stack switch, spanning-tree checks ok) the software upgrade with 'reloadfast' fails because an incompatibility, which is ISSU (however I have not invoked keyword 'issu' because this is not supported in Cat 9300). Is it possible that 'reloadfast' is dependent on ISSU to work? 

Command executed (in 17.06.03 version): 

install add file flash:cat9k_iosxe.17.06.04.SPA.bin activate reloadfast commit 

show log

: %INSTALL-5-INSTALL_START_INFO: Switch 1 R0/0: install_engine: Started install one-shot flash:cat9k_iosxe.17.06.04.SPA.bin
: %ISSU-3-ISSU_COMP_CHECK_FAILED: Switch 1 R0/0: install_engine: ISSU compatibility check failed for 17.06.04.0.4912
: %INSTALL-3-OPERATION_ERROR_MESSAGE: Switch 1 R0/0: install_engine: Failed to install_add_activate_commit package flash:cat9k_iosxe.17.06.04.SPA.bin, Error: install_add_activate_commit /flash/cat9k-wlc.17.06.04.SPA.pkg /flash/cat9k-webui.17.06.04.SPA.pkg /flash/cat9k-srdriver.17.06.04.SPA.pkg /flash/cat9k-sipspa.17.06.04.SPA.pkg /flash/cat9k-sipbase.17.06.04.SPA.pkg /flash/cat9k-rpboot.17.06.04.SPA.pkg /flash/cat9k-rpbase.17.06.04.SPA.pkg /flash/cat9k-lni.17.06.04.SPA.pkg /flash/cat9k-guestshell.17.06.04.SPA.pkg /flash/cat9k-espbase.17.06.04.SPA.pkg /flash/cat9k-cc_srd

show install log
{...}
[4|install_add_activate_commit(INFO, )]: [1 2]: Performing Add
PID TTY TIME CMD
SUCCESS: Add finished
[4|install_add_activate_commit(INFO, )]: Remote output from switch 1
[4|install_add_activate_commit(INFO, )]: install_add: START {...}
Expanding image file: flash:cat9k_iosxe.17.06.04.SPA.bin
[1]: Expanding file
... expanding file completed
[1]: Verifying parameters
[1]: Expanding superpackage flash:cat9k_iosxe.17.06.04.SPA.bin
[1]: ... parameters verified
[1]: Validating package type
[1]: ... package type validated
[1]: Copying package files
{...}
[1]: SUCCESS: Finished expanding all-in-one software package.
[1]: Finished expanding all-in-one software package in switch 1
SUCCESS: Finished expanding all-in-one software package.
Image file expanded
SUCCESS: install_add {...}
[4|install_add_activate_commit(INFO, )]: Remote output from switch 2
{...}
[2]: SUCCESS: Finished expanding all-in-one software package.
[2]: Finished expanding all-in-one software package in switch 2
SUCCESS: Finished expanding all-in-one software package.
Image file expanded
SUCCESS: install_add {...}
[4|install_add_activate_commit(CONSOLE, )]: Activating PACKAGE
[4|install_add_activate_commit(INFO, )]: global_trans_lock: /bootflash/.installer/install_global_trans_lock
[4|install_add_activate_commit(INFO, )]: tmp_global_trans_lock: /tmp/tmp_install_global_trans_lock
[4|install_add_activate_commit(INFO, )]: tmp lock does not exist: /tmp/tmp_install_global_trans_lock
[5|COMP_CHECK]: START {...}
[5|COMP_CHECK]: END FAILED exit(1) {...}
[5|COMP_CHECK(INFO, )]: cleanup_trap remote_invocation 0 operation COMP_CHECK .. 1 .. 1
[4|install_add_activate_commit( FATAL)]: Abort reloadfast install since requirement does not met

 

It's a shame you never received a response to this, as I am having the same issue trying to xFSU from 17.09.03 to 17.09.04. I've opened a TAC case so will reply back if we get anywhere on this.

It seems there is a bug with 17.09.03 (maybe earlier versions too, but mine shipped with this version so it's all I tested) preventing fast reloads and xFSU. Once I upgraded to 17.09.04 (without xFSU), I am now able to do fast reloads and also tested xFSU upgrades to 17.09.04a and back to 17.09.04 successfully.

I confirmed this same behavior on four 2-chassis stacks of 9300X-48TX.

 

thx for the update frozenpea, i haven't played with this in about 2 years now, but the initial testing showed this was mostly vapor-ware and didn't really work as expected. im glad you got something to work. this gives me hope. in the end, i went with virtual stackwise on 2 x 9500 catalyst. this is a very expensive switch stack to just get basic 1-switch-at-a-time upgradability. I spoke with the program managers at Cisco for the catalyst 9x00 line up and told them this lacking feature on the lower model number stacks was a serious deficit. I dont think they care as they are gearing the 9x00 stack line-up as workstation access switches, meaning you can take them down at night or weekends for extended period of time. but in practice, some folks are using the stacks in their core/distribution layer because the higher end stuff is so dam expensive.

this is another area where Cisco is missing the mark. there are too many misses coming out of Cisco in the last 4-8 years. its getting depressing and tiring dealing with this stuff. I have considered looking at HP gear for a reasonable-priced stack that has this functionality of single switch upgrade, 1-at-a-time, in order to keep the traffic flowing.

Yes Will, you hit the nail on the head. I am using these 9300s in my data center for access alongside a couple of comparatively expensive 9500 virtual stacks for distribution. Perhaps we could afford the higher end hardware if we weren't forced to buy DNA subscriptions that we don't want or use.

For what it's worth, my first test of a host connected to the 9300 stack via lacp saw 1 dropped ping at each switch reboot during a fast reload which is very acceptable to me.

thx frozen pea. that's good to see your empirical data. i have 3 stacks of 9300 dual sets which need upgrading. this gives me some hope. i may give it a try to upgrade these things with fast reload again! sounds like they might have baked this feature a bit further in later releases. I'm doing routing on some of them, as well as LACP, so ill give you some updates when i have them. it might be a few months before i get the maintenance window though.

Getting Started

Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community:

Review Cisco Networking products for a $25 gift card