Test! Test! Test! Search this forum for previous posts about this. There are a
bunch of gotchas. Perhaps one of the most severe is what happens to
administrator IDS. Create some dummy admin IDS to use in testing, because you
can permanently disable your own admin ID if you're not careful. We also know
there will be library sharing gotchas.
We're actually going to do the backup servers first - after thorough testing.
We think we can minimize the risk to things like admin IDS if we upgrade the
servers with NO clients yet on 7.1.8. I think that having 7.1.8 clients around
will greatly complicate the process of upgrading the servers, especially if any
of those 7.1.8 clients are the desktop workstations used by you and your
coworkers. It's possible that when you do eventually upgrade your servers to
7.1.8, you'll have to backtrack to each client and manually install new SSL
keys, on all client systems, all at once. I hope that cat-herding nightmare can
be avoided by upgrading servers first, which will then manage key distribution
among clients more gracefully, as they upgrade to 7.1.8 one at a time. If I'm
wrong about any of this, please chime in.
This thing has a big effect. Careful testing is necessary.
Roger Deschner
University of Illinois at Chicago
"I have not lost my mind - it is backed up on tape somewhere."
________________________________________
From: Skylar Thompson <skylar2 AT U.WASHINGTON DOT EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 16:19
Subject: Re: Should I upgrade to 7.1.8.x ??? (on the client end only)
Content preview: I believe the incompatibility arises if you set
SESSIONSECURITY
to STRICT for your nodes. The default is TRANSITIONAL so you should be fine;
IIRC the only communication problems we had when upgrading our servers to
v7.1.8 was with library sharing. [...]
Content analysis details: (0.6 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.7 SPF_NEUTRAL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral)
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Barracuda-Connect: mx.gs.washington.edu[128.208.8.134]
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1514931575
X-Barracuda-Encrypted: ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384
X-Barracuda-URL: https://148.100.49.28:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi
X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at marist.edu
X-Barracuda-Scan-Msg-Size: 3241
X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1
X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00
X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=3.5
QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=5.5 tests=
X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.46484
Rule breakdown below
pts rule name description
---- ----------------------
--------------------------------------------------
I believe the incompatibility arises if you set SESSIONSECURITY to STRICT
for your nodes. The default is TRANSITIONAL so you should be fine; IIRC the only
communication problems we had when upgrading our servers to v7.1.8 was with
library sharing.
That said, v7.1.8 was a huge change so I would test it if possible first.
On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 05:12:44PM -0500, Tom Alverson wrote:
> Thanks for that link, I am more worried about any "gotcha's" caused by
> upgrading the client to 7.1.8 or 8.1.2 before the storage servers get
> upgraded (and start using the new authentication). What I had not
> realized until I saw the chart is that the new clients are NOT backward
> compatible with old storage servers (which doesn't really affect me since
> we have those all at 7.1.7.2 now).
>
>
> *IBM SPECTRUM PROTECT CLIENT SUPPORT*
>
> includes the Backup-Archive, API, UNIX HSM, and Web clients
> that are compatible with, and currently supported with,
> IBM Spectrum Protect Servers and Storage Agents.
> *IBM Spectrum Protect*
> *Client Version*
> *Supported IBM Spectrum Protect*
> *Server and Storage Agent Versions*
> 8.1.2
> 8.1, 7.1
> 8.1.0
> 8.1, 7.1, 6.3.x 1
> 7.1.8
> 8.1, 7.1
> 7.1
> 8.1, 7.1, 6.3.x 1
> 6.4 1
> 8.1, 7.1, 6.3.x 1
> 6.3 1, 2
> 8.1, 7.1, 6.3.x 1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Skylar Thompson <skylar2 AT u.washington DOT
> edu>
> wrote:
>
> > There's pretty wide version compatibility between clients and servers; we
> > didn't go v7 server-side until pretty recently but have been running the v7
> > client for a while. IBM has a matrix published here:
> >
> > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21053218
> >
> > For basic backups and restores I think you can deviate even more, but
> > obviously you won't get support.
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 03:14:24PM -0500, Tom Alverson wrote:
> > > Our TSM storage servers were all upgraded last year to 7.1.7.2 (before
> > this
> > > new security update came out). Now I am wondering if I should start
> > using
> > > the updated client or not? If the servers stay at 7.1.7.2 for now is
> > > there any harm in using the newer client? I would have to use 7.1.8.0 on
> > > anything older than 2012. I saw some email traffic earlier that once you
> > > use the new authentication mode on a node you can't go back? But it
> > seems
> > > that would not be possible until our storage servers get upgraded.
> > >
> > > Is there any downside in my case (where the storage servers are still at
> > > 7.1.7.2) of using the latest client versions in the interim?? Our
> > current
> > > standard client versions now are 7.1.6.4 for 2008 and older, and 8.1.0.0
> > > (yes the horrible buggy one) on newer servers.
> > >
> > > Tom
> >
> > --
> > -- Skylar Thompson (skylar2 AT u.washington DOT edu)
> > -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator
> > -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354
> > -- University of Washington School of Medicine
> >
--
-- Skylar Thompson (skylar2 AT u.washington DOT edu)
-- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator
-- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354
-- University of Washington School of Medicine
|
