<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Upgrade OM in paralell? in Active IQ Unified Manager Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Upgrade-OM-in-paralell/m-p/23861#M5088</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Richard --&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'd be interested in hearing the release number too.&amp;nbsp; In development and testing, we routinely have storage systems monitored by 3, 5, 10 or more DFM stations.&amp;nbsp; I haven't heard of one panicing recently due to license issues. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We generally don't run the storage systems with heavy read/write loads, which is why we get away with it but don't recommend it to customers.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-- Pete&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:34:37 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>smoot</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2009-11-04T22:34:37Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Upgrade OM in paralell?</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Upgrade-OM-in-paralell/m-p/23834#M5081</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi guys,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We are about to upgrade from OM 3.7 to 3.8. At the same time its going on a new and more robust server. My question is simple:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Can I run two instances at the same time? I want to install 3.8 on the new server, "restore" a backup to it and run the new version&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp; in paralell with the older instance so that I sort of get to test the new setup. Will this work? Cant see why not myself, it would create&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp; more traffic but thats about it?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Eric&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;PS: I should have asked this too: our current OM is a windows version, on new version is Linux, will upgrading even work?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Message was edited by: eric.barlier&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 07:22:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Upgrade-OM-in-paralell/m-p/23834#M5081</guid>
      <dc:creator>eric_barlier</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-05T07:22:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Upgrade OM in paralell?</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Upgrade-OM-in-paralell/m-p/23838#M5082</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Eric --&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Yes, that will work.&amp;nbsp; You will need to be careful if you run scripts, configuration management, Protection Manager or Provisioning Manager (basically anything that will perform active management on the storage systems).&amp;nbsp; Those could interfere with each other.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You are correct this will generate additional load on the storage systems, so keep an eye on that to decide whether it's acceptable.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm not sure how the licensing will work out.&amp;nbsp; NetApp pays a royalty to our component vendors for every installed DFM instance.&amp;nbsp; I don't know if we have an exception for transitions like this.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-- Pete&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:10:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Upgrade-OM-in-paralell/m-p/23838#M5082</guid>
      <dc:creator>smoot</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-11-04T22:10:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Upgrade OM in paralell?</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Upgrade-OM-in-paralell/m-p/23846#M5083</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;It definitely does work.&amp;nbsp; It will create a lot more traffic to the system, particularly if you have PerfAdvisor enabled from both systems.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You might want to consider disabling perfadvisor on the new system until the upgrade is fully complete.&amp;nbsp; Then when your upgrade is done, and the monitoring part of DFM is fully up and running do the following.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;move the perfdata directory on your new server to a _tmp&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;dfm options set perfadvisorenabled=off on your old system&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;copy the perfdata directory from your old server to your new&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;rename the perfdata directory on your old server to _old&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;set options set perfadvisorenabled=on on your new system&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;That way your perf data history will be continuous (except for copy time) and you won't have any dual performance monitoring of your systems&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have used this method in the past for several types of issues.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:10:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Upgrade-OM-in-paralell/m-p/23846#M5083</guid>
      <dc:creator>matthewt</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-11-04T22:10:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Upgrade OM in paralell?</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Upgrade-OM-in-paralell/m-p/23853#M5084</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Eric,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I've had firsthand experience with what you're proposing (which probably doesn't surprise you).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I've found issues with ONTAP that if you monitor a Filer with more than one OM server the second OM server needs to use a different license key.  It caused a system panic so it was not a trivial problem.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'll see if I can dig out the info on the incident and determine whether its fixed in a later version of ONTAP than when I first encountered the issue.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Richard&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:15:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Upgrade-OM-in-paralell/m-p/23853#M5084</guid>
      <dc:creator>RichardSopp</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-11-04T22:15:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Upgrade OM in paralell?</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Upgrade-OM-in-paralell/m-p/23861#M5088</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Richard --&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'd be interested in hearing the release number too.&amp;nbsp; In development and testing, we routinely have storage systems monitored by 3, 5, 10 or more DFM stations.&amp;nbsp; I haven't heard of one panicing recently due to license issues. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We generally don't run the storage systems with heavy read/write loads, which is why we get away with it but don't recommend it to customers.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-- Pete&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:34:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Upgrade-OM-in-paralell/m-p/23861#M5088</guid>
      <dc:creator>smoot</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-11-04T22:34:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Upgrade OM in paralell?</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Upgrade-OM-in-paralell/m-p/23866#M5090</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Richard,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Very interesting indeed, I wonder if the crash would have been due to separate serials? If I could run the same SN on both instances it would be seen&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;as one instance (?) and it would not crash..&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Anywys, I ll look into if I can run with same serial and take it from there.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks and good to hear from you again!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Eric&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:11:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Upgrade-OM-in-paralell/m-p/23866#M5090</guid>
      <dc:creator>eric_barlier</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-11-04T23:11:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Upgrade OM in paralell?</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Upgrade-OM-in-paralell/m-p/23871#M5092</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks a bunch for this info. I ll sure get good use of it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Cheers,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Eric&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:16:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Upgrade-OM-in-paralell/m-p/23871#M5092</guid>
      <dc:creator>eric_barlier</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-11-04T23:16:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Upgrade OM in paralell?</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Upgrade-OM-in-paralell/m-p/23874#M5094</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Eric,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The problem was the same SN / license key in both instances.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And as luck would have it I can't find the case info or bug number.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'll keep digging.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Richard&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:30:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Upgrade-OM-in-paralell/m-p/23874#M5094</guid>
      <dc:creator>RichardSopp</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-11-04T23:30:28Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Upgrade OM in paralell?</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Upgrade-OM-in-paralell/m-p/23879#M5096</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the update. I still need to install OM on a linux box, so Im not there yet. I might hold fire though..&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Eric&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:36:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Upgrade-OM-in-paralell/m-p/23879#M5096</guid>
      <dc:creator>eric_barlier</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-11-04T23:36:57Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Upgrade OM in paralell?</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Upgrade-OM-in-paralell/m-p/23884#M5099</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Pete,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Found it.  Bug 187970 because we had systems running 7.1.2.1 at the time.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It's an SSH bug rather than an OM bug but somehow out of the situation we also developed a best practice of having unique license keys per OM instance (not sure how but then details are sketchy as this was a while ago).  Because OM uses SSH the likelihood of these kind of SSH bugs on the Filer are exaggerated when more OM instances are added to the environment.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;At the time we also had concerns with the last sentence in point 2.5 on the following document:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/DFM_win/rel37/html/faq/index.shtml#_2.5" target="_blank"&gt;http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/DFM_win/rel37/html/faq/index.shtml#_2.5&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The wording was open to interpretation especially when differentiating between monitoring and management functions.  From a provisioning and protection manager perspective I think you've already mentioned its best practice to only manage via one instance.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Richard&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:54:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Upgrade-OM-in-paralell/m-p/23884#M5099</guid>
      <dc:creator>RichardSopp</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-11-04T23:54:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Upgrade OM in paralell?</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Upgrade-OM-in-paralell/m-p/23887#M5101</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Oh, yeah, that bug rings a bell now.&amp;nbsp; It was handled by some engineers down the hall from me and I remember hearing about it at the time.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I seem to also remember some gyrations about whether the default transport for DFM should be http or https.&amp;nbsp; It should be good and fixed by now, so not to worry.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:09:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/Upgrade-OM-in-paralell/m-p/23887#M5101</guid>
      <dc:creator>smoot</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-11-05T00:09:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

