cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
609
Views
0
Helpful
4
Replies

UCS Manager release upgrade advise

dani_bosch
Beginner
Beginner

Hello,

We have a UCS infrastructure with UCS Manager 2.0(3) release and vSphere 4.1.

Now we'd like to upgrade our vSphere infrastructure to 5.1 version. Taking into consideration that UCS Manager 2.0(3) doesn't support vSphere 5.1, is there any benefit in upgrading UCS Manager to 2.0(4) or to 2.0(5) compared to upgrading it to the very last 2.1(1) release? I'm thinking about stability, or maybe other reasons...??

Thanks,

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

Yes  - Any build train that is more mature (ie. patched more frequently) should inheritly be more stable.  When you introduce new features, such as the case for 2.1 there are many fixes added after we discover strange things customers are trying to do with the product.  It's impossible to QA a product for every customer & deployment disparity.

If you don't need the new features, specific HW or SW OS support, then stay with the current 2.0 train.  It's just more mature than 2.1.  We should have our first 2.1 patch coming in a couple months tentatively.  At that time I'd start promoting the 2.1 as being the more stable & recommended build.

Regards,

Robert

View solution in original post

4 REPLIES 4

gkumark
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

Hi Dani,

We have few new features in 2.1 such as FC direct attached storage, Multi Hop FCoE etc.  You can refer to

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/unified_computing/ucs/release/notes/UCS_28313.html for more details on that.

If you upgrade to 2.0(4) or 2.0(5) you would lose out on above features. In 2.0(4) and 2.0(5) majorly we have bug fixes and support for additional hardware. Refer to

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/unified_computing/ucs/release/notes/OL_25363.html#wp58530 for more details.

-Ganesh

But again, if I don't need these new features, would it be fair to say 2.0(5) is potentially more stable than 2.1(1) since is an older and widely tested code train? Or that is not true?

Yes  - Any build train that is more mature (ie. patched more frequently) should inheritly be more stable.  When you introduce new features, such as the case for 2.1 there are many fixes added after we discover strange things customers are trying to do with the product.  It's impossible to QA a product for every customer & deployment disparity.

If you don't need the new features, specific HW or SW OS support, then stay with the current 2.0 train.  It's just more mature than 2.1.  We should have our first 2.1 patch coming in a couple months tentatively.  At that time I'd start promoting the 2.1 as being the more stable & recommended build.

Regards,

Robert

CloudySky
Beginner
Beginner

My Cisco rep also steered me away from 2.1, until one or two patch versions are out. Renaming of service profiles is the biggest enhancement for me, but that's not critical. So I'm playing it patient and waiting for stable spring/summer releases.

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: