Wireless Access

last person joined: yesterday 

Access network design for branch, remote, outdoor, and campus locations with HPE Aruba Networking access points and mobility controllers.
Expand all | Collapse all

Stepped Upgrade Procedure

This thread has been viewed 7 times
  • 1.  Stepped Upgrade Procedure

    Posted Jun 14, 2012 01:36 PM

    I was recently told by a TAC engineer that if the non-boot partition contains an image that requires a stepped upgrade then you must follow the stepped upgrade procedure even if the controller is already running a newer version of code that doesn't require a stepped upgrade on the boot partition.  For example: Controller running 6.1.2.1 from partition 0 has 5.0.3.0 installed on partition 1.  Can an upgrade to 6.1.3.2 be performed directly to partition 1 since the controller is actively running 6.1.2.1 from partition 0 or does partition 1 need to be upgraded to the latest 5.0.4.X code first and then to 6.1.3.2?



  • 2.  RE: Stepped Upgrade Procedure
    Best Answer

    Posted Jun 14, 2012 05:41 PM

    I can't confirm 100%, but I don't think TAC was correct on that one.  What's in the non-running partition should be irrelevant.  You should be able to just load 6.1.3.2 into partition 1 and be done with it.



  • 3.  RE: Stepped Upgrade Procedure

    Posted Jun 15, 2012 01:17 PM

    Thanks Mike!  That was always my understanding as well and I've never had an issue performing upgrades that way. 



  • 4.  RE: Stepped Upgrade Procedure

    Posted Jun 19, 2012 02:09 AM

    No, you don't require stepped upgrade.

    I wonder in what context TAC recommended that? Were you facing any issue and TAC recomended it or was it just a general query?

     

     



  • 5.  RE: Stepped Upgrade Procedure

    Posted Jun 25, 2012 09:36 PM

    I was having issues upgrading but it was due to lack of flash memory and had to have TAC go in and clear out an image stuck in flash from a failed upgrade.  I can't say for certain because I've had that issue a couple of times recently but I believe this was the case # 1302516.