UNSOLVED
DS-4400M firmware upgrade parth
I've got a pair of DS-4400Ms connected to a CX300 and while it's all running fine the firmware on the switches and the CX300 is old.
The DS-4400Ms are currently running E/OS 09.01.00 50 and the CX300 is running 02.26.300.5.005 and they need to be upgraded to the current versions which are 09.09.09 and 02.26.300.5.031 repectivly.
I've spent some with with the E-Lab Interoperability Navigator but it does not cover the older switch firmware and for the CX300 is no more detailed than 02.26.
Looking through the DS-4400M firmware releases it's my understanding that I need to go through several intermediate firmware versions to upgrade.
The minimum path appears to be
09.01.00 to 09.06.02 to 09.07.02 to 09.09.09
The release notes of 09.07.02 say the minimum firmware needed is 09.x but the migration matrix (32/33) in the 09.09.09 release notes only indicate a migration from 09.01 to 09.06.02.
I assume I need to upgrade the switches up one level at a time so they're not to many versions of firmware different.
Does the upgrade path look reasonable? Can I upgrade the switches and then the CX300 or should I do the CX300 first?
Should I run for a CE?
The upgrade path looks fine. If they are in production, then you will want to alternate switches during the upgrade to keep them within one revision at all times.
It doesnt matter if you do the switches or Cx300 first.
When you do big upgrades like this, you might also want to keep in mind the firmware on the HBA's, drivers, and powerpath since this comprises the complete solution.
I've just upgraded one DS4400 to firmware 09.06.02 OK but the other DS4400 keeps reverting to 09.01.00.
On both DS4400s I used the web based admin to load the same 09.06.02 firmware file and load the new firmware.
One DS4400 is now running 09.06.02 but the other is still on 09.01.00.
I've tried to load the firmware twice on the switch which won't upgrade. The process seems to so fine with
no error but the switch is not running the new firmware.
One interesting thing is that there's a slight different in some of the logging:
Feb 13 12:44:27 switch-B Event: 421 Data: 3039 2e30 362e 3032 2034 0000 0000 0000 00Feb 13 14:32:59 switch-A Event: 421 Data: 3039 2e30 312e 3030 2035 3000 0000 0000 00Feb 13 14:44:42 switch-A Event: 421 Data: 3039 2e30 312e 3030 2035 3000 0000 0000 00Switch B upgraded fine but switch A has not.Time for a service call I think!Both switches have been upgraded by following this path - 09.01.00 to 09.06.02 to 09.07.02 to 09.09.09
The firmware upgrades were totally non-disruptive as advertised in the release notes.
One switch refused to load the 09.06.02 firmware and after opening an SR it was replaced. The replacement was non-disruptive because our FC SAN is fully resilient.
DanJost
190 Posts
1576
1
Posted January 26th, 2011 06:00
I went through a similar upgrade on some mcdata switches - I went from an early 09.x -> 09.06.02 -> 09.09.07. Didn't have to go to 09.07.x but if 7 supports a direct upgrade from the earlier version and it is just transitional it probably doesn't matter if you go to 6 or 7 in the interim. Like you, I found the interop matrix was a little confusing.
These were not in production when I started. I have three spare 4400M's which has turned out to be a good thing as a number of the SFPs have failed recently. Real pain when they are at a datacenter 100+ miles away. I have had problems with autonegotiation on some older 2Gbit HBAs - running at 1Gbit but if you force it to 2 then life is good. I don't know if that is a persistent problem or something in the newer code as the 4400's were replacing something even more ancient.
Dan