Virtual Connect 3.x 升级到 3.30 固件的更新

[MUDBOY]

最近有很小一部分惠普的客户反映， 在升级Virtual Connect firmware固件的时候，有可能会发生丢失VC Domain configuration配置信息.

Below is a MUST read for anyone who is involved with Virtual Connect.

A potential problem exist while upgrading Virtual Connect firmware from 3.x to 3.30 that may cause a loss of the VC Domain configuration during the firmware activation process. During the activation and recovery process of the firmware update, an issue exists when processing profiles with Multi Blade Signatures (MBS) that would cause the process to abnormally terminate and leave the Domain in an un-configured state.

Any VC Domain running firmware 3.x upgrading to VC 3.30 with VC profiles assigned to BL870c (i2) and BL890c (i2) Integrity Servers will fail and cause loss of VC Domain configuration.

Any VC Domain running firmware 3.x upgrading to VC 3.30 with existing VC profiles that contain a Multi Blade Signature (MBS) will fail and cause loss of VC Domain configuration.*

*Note: Un-assigning a VC profile from an empty Server Bay and re-assigning to a different Server Bay could create a situation where a Multi Blade Signature is applied to a VC profile even though it is assigned to a single Blade Server (i.e BL460c, BL465c, BL680, etc.)

故障判断 Indications of the problem:
• VCSU firmware upgrade to 3.30 times out and fails to activate the Primary VC Module
• Attempts to login to the Virtual Connect (VC) Domain will fail using previously configured user accounts and passwords
• Logins to VC using the default password will result in a prompt to run the Domain Wizard
• Loss of connectivity to Ethernet and Fiber Channel within VC Domain
• Restore of a VC Domain configuration on VC 3.30 fails

故障原因 Root Cause of the problem:
Two problems exist that can lead to this loss of Domain configuration:
• A failure to clear Blade Signatures on a profile when un-assigning from an Empty Server Bay in VC 3.x
• A problem in VC version comparison that didn’t allow for a MBS check to complete

可能的问答 Q&A
(1) Does this problem effect new Virtual Connect 3.30 deployments?
No, customers deploying new VC 3.30 domains are not susceptible to this issue. Customers deploying new VC domains running VC 3.30 should proceed normally with no necessary actions.

(2) Does this problem effect Multi-Enclosure Domains that are upgrading from 3.x to 3.30?
Yes, Single Enclosure and Multi-Enclosure Domains are both susceptible to this issue.

(3) If the VC Domain does NOT contain BL870c (i2) or BL890c (i2) Integrity Servers, is it safe to update the Domain from 3.x to 3.30?
No, based on the Note above, Single Blade Servers might have Multi-Blade Signatures due to a defect when un-assigning profiles from an Empty Bay. If there are profiles in the Domain in this situation, the VC upgrade to 3.30 will cause a loss of Domain.

(4) My customer has already deployed VC 3.30 to a Virtual Connect domain and are running in production, do they need to do anything?
No, if they have completed a VC 3.30 firmware update successfully, without loss of Domain, they are not susceptible to this issue. This issue will only be triggered during a firmware update from VC 3.x to VC 3.30 or a restore of a VC Backup Configuration file to a VC 3.30 Domain. They do not need to take any action.

(5) My customer has already upgraded some VC domains running 3.x to VC 3.30 successfully and is planning on updating more VC domains to VC 3.30. If they have all been successful so far, should they continue to upgrade these other enclosures?
Absolutely not, 1 or more Domains success does not ensure other Domains are not susceptible to the problem. They should not continue the upgrade process until further information is released.

(6) My customer is running VC 1.x or VC 2.x, can they update to VC 3.30?
Yes, VC Domains upgrading from VC 1.x or VC 2.x to VC 3.30 are not susceptible to this issue.

(7) Will there be a EA/CA for this issue describing the details and the workarounds/resolution?
Yes, a EA/CA is forthcoming to officially communicate this to all necessary parties.

(8) What are the plans to resolve/workaround this issue?
HP has developed a tool that will detect MBS signatures and provide the necessary steps to work around the issue and update to VC 3.30 without causing a loss of domain. The plan is to have this tool available for download very soon with an Advisory.

(9) Will a newer VC firmware update resolve this issue automatically?
Yes, the plan is the next release of VC firmware will correct both issues described above during the firmware update without need for running the separate tool.

[MUDBOY]

什么是MBS？ What is a Multi Blade Signature (MBS)?
We are going to remove the “MBS” communication externally because it is not relevant to anyone but to VC development and the underlying defect.
We are currently working on the Customer Advisory that will describe who is potentially effected with details without the use of “MBS”.

如何判断 MBS 存在？ How do you know if a MBS exists?
The VC Tool we are going to release will identify this issue and provide further instructions.

If I have 46x or 68x hardware within a VCD would I know if a MBS exists?
No it doesn’t show anywhere in VCM GUI or CLI, the VC tool will identify this.

[hunterdzh]

有附件下载吗？

[wonly]

3.30和3.1x的最大区别在于
3.30可以给每个network定义不同的tunnel和mapping模式 而在3.30以前的版本中在定义domain时就得选择。

[c2h6o]

3.30升级好麻烦啊，试了5次才成功。

[fido]

很详细。。

[akila930]

很詳細，謝謝您的說明，thanks.