RHEV - Changing compatibility version of cluster

Latest response

Hi,

Looking at this document:
https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Virtualization/3.2/html/Installation_Guide/Changing_the_Cluster_Compatibility_Version.html

Will it always be recommended to put hosts in maintenance mode before changing compatibility versions of clusters in RHEV?
It would be great to be able to upgrade the infrastructure without interupting the virtual machine's uptime.

Responses

Yes, as of now putting the hosts in maintenance is the only way.
If you would like not to have it like this, I would recommend opening a support ticket with
Red Hat GSS so that we can file a feature request and you can choose to monitor the progress
of the feature via the support ticket.

Thanks
--Anand

Is it still recommended to put the hosts in a cluster in maintenance mode before changing the cluster compatibility version? Went through the documentation for RHEV 3.3, couldn't find it, and then looked in the documentation I refer to (https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Virtualization/3.2/html/Installation_Guide/Changing_the_Cluster_Compatibility_Version.html) and couldn't find it there either.

It's not required to move hypervisors to maintenance mode to change cluster compatibility mode. You only required to make sure that all hosts are upgraded to a version the new compatibility mode supports.

AFAIK it was never required (i.e it was possible to change in GUI without hosts in maintenance) prior to changing compatibility version, but it was recommended according to the document i was referring to (but since I can't find it anymore I guess the document has been updated).
I encountered a bug related to not putting the hosts in maintenance mode before changing compatibility version when I went from 3.1 to 3.2, and I wanted to make sure I'm not exposed to the same bug if I don't put the hosts in maintenance mode when changing from 3.2 to 3.3

Was there a bug filed for this or case opened? If yes, let me know the # so that I can check whether it's fixed or not.

It was a case opened: https://access.redhat.com/support/cases/00854398.
And going through the case again I see they refer to a bug that is fixed in RHEV 3.3: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=967268