Hello all,
Thanks to the numerous people who replied. The upgrade is not a piece of
cake as I expected. We'll have to upgrade the OS as well as the firmware.
The minimal OS revision is 3.2D-2, but we'll move on to 3.2g, as it will be
easier to step up to DU 4.0 later. We cannot go to 4.0 now because DEC
polycenter scheduler does not work with it.
BTW, if someone can give me the latest 4.x revision that is STABLE, I would
like to know it. We currently have the 4.0b CD and we're not sure if this
version is OK.
Here is my original post as well as the answers I received:
--------------------------------------------
Original Post:
Hello,
We've just discovered (after 1 full year of operation) that DEC goofed when
they built our systems at the factory. We ordered alpha 2100A's and they
built us a set of 2100 servers. No one noticed that until last week when we
discovered that we needed more expansion and had to add a supplementary
card in a PCI slot. We then discovered that we had only 3 PCI slots !
Now, it's in the hands of DEC. They say that they could upgrade the main
boards of our rackmounted systems to a 2100A, but they asked a lot of
questions about our hardware + software config.
We are running DU 3.2D-1, we applied a couple of patches to the OS, we also
run oracle 7.2.3, polycenter scheduler and DecSafe. We also have a pair of
dual redundant HSZ40's configured and a shared scsi bus between the 2
servers.
Did anyone ever do that kind of upgrade ? Was it a painful experience ?
What kind of pitfalls should I avoid ?
Does DU 3.2D-1 run with a 2100_A_ ?
--------------------------------------------
Answers:
As far as I know the 2100A is a back-plane replacement
and a license for the appropriate version of Digital UNIX
to support the 2100A. Look at the V3.2 SPDs, V3.2D is the
first version to support the 2100A. As I recollect there
were two variants of V3.2D, -1 and -2. One was the collection
of bug fixes over V3.2C and the other was the part of the
upgrade to support new hardware. Get out your V3.2D release
notes and see if the -2 version was for the 2100A.
-----------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 14:46:02 -0500
From: "Frank J. Nagy/Get this cheese to Sickbay!" <NAGY_at_fndcd.fnal.gov> To:
dallaire_at_TOTAL.NET
Subject: RE: 2100 -> 2100A upgrade: What's involved ?
It just so happens I have an 2100->2100A upgrade kit (pedestal) sitting in
my office right now. We ordered this for a 4/275 system and have to
resolve OS upgrade issue before we do the actual upgrade.
Just in case, the model number for the upgrade kit for the rackmount system
is KFPEA-BA (for Digital UNIX).
The documentation with the kit lists the minimum Digital UNIX version as
V3.2D-2. Our kit came with V3.2G.and V5.0 DU kits.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: 2100 -> 2100A upgrade: What's involved ?
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 97 15:59:46 -0400
From: "Dr. Tom Blinn, 603-881-0646" <tpb_at_zk3.dec.com> X-Mts: smtp
> Does DU 3.2D-1 run with a 2100_A_ ?
I think the answer is "no", that you need V3.2D-2 for the 2100*A*.
D-1 was the "maintenance" release, D-2 was the "hardware update" that had
all the "maintenance" release bits plus the 2100A support. So you'd need
to apply the D-2 kernel build stuff (all the 2100A support should be in the
kernel, not in user space), but that might be a conflict with one or more
of the patches you've installed. If all the patches are in user space, you
should be OK, but if there are kernel module replacements (.o files), you
may have to reapply the patches (with the D-2 versions).
Tom
Dr. Thomas P. Blinn, UNIX Software Group, Digital Equipment Corporation
110 Spit Brook Road, MS ZKO3-2/U20 Nashua, New Hampshire 03062-2698
Technology Partnership Engineering Phone: (603) 881-0646
Internet: tpb_at_zk3.dec.com Digital's Easynet: alpha::tpb
ACM Member: tpblinn_at_acm.org PC_at_Home: tom_at_felines.mv.net
-------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 11:13:38 -0900
To: Guy Dallaire <dallaire_at_total.net>
From: Kurt Carlson <sxkac_at_java.sois.alaska.edu> Subject: Re: 2100 -> 2100A
upgrade: What's involved ?
Attached is a response to the same question asked previously.
Also check the archives, I believe Tim posted some other hints he received.
k
>Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 10:48:12 -0900
>To: Tim Mooney <mooney_at_dogbert.cc.ndsu.NoDak.edu>
>From: sxkac_at_java.sois.alaska.edu (Kurt Carlson)
>Subject: Re: AlphaServer 2100 -> 2100A gotchas?
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>>Within the next few days we'll be upgrading 2 AlphaServer 2100 4/233s
(running
>>Digital Unix 3.2g) to 2100As. Anyone that's been through the process
care
>>to advise me on any "gotchas" that I need to be careful to avoid?
>
>It was painless when we did ours, my recollection is the steps in the
>upgrade documentation were fairly accurate.
>
>Make sure you get the firmware done correctly (use the the DU not NT
>version of ECU).
>
>The IO module of the old 2100's don't exist in 2100A's. This shouldn't
>be a problem as the upgrade has everything that was on there in some form,
>it's just different.
>
>Since your console settings will be lost, you may want to print|save a
copy
>of a console 'show' to facilitate putting things back the way you want
them.
>
>>Also, and this may be a stupid question but I have to ask, I don't really
>>have to (re)install Digital Unix after doing the upgrade if I'm already
>>running a recent enough version on the machine already, do I? (!). The
>>upgrade document makes no mention of this situation.
>
>No, you don't need to reinstall. You *will* need to rebuild your kernel.
>I'd suggest doing a full doconfig for this (vs. a -c HOST) so you get
>your bus information and device files properly rebuilt for the changed
>configuration. Obviously, make a backup copy of the config file first.
>
>If you do any device file customization, like logically
>naming tape mt devices instead of numerically incrementing them, you
>will need to recreate that (likewise with and mc or op type files).
>If your bus numbers change (depends on where you install your option
>cards), you may need to rebuild /etc/fdmns entries for advfs. kurt
_____________________________________________________________________ Kurt
Carlson, University of Alaska SOIS/TS, (907)474-6266
sxkac_at_alaska.edu 910 Yukon Drive #105.63, Fairbanks, AK 99775-6200
--------------------------------------------------------
From: Dave Cherkus <cherkus_at_homerun.unimaster.com> Subject: Re: 2100 ->
2100A upgrade: What's involved ?
To: dallaire_at_total.net (Guy Dallaire)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 20:15:08 -0400 (EDT)
|> Did anyone ever do that kind of upgrade ? Was it a painful experience ?
|> What kind of pitfalls should I avoid ?
I have not done an upgrade but I have used both 2100s and 2100As.
The 2100A has much better IO throughput than 2100 (I've measured this using
Memory Channel boaards). I think you will be happy with the upgrade.
There are a few silly PCI slot limitations due to the presence of the PCI
bridge chip on the 2100A. The ones I know of are:
- The memory channel board must be on the primary PCI segment
- The KZPSA can be either on the primary or secondary but
its firmware upgrade utility that runs from the NT console
(I think it's fwupdate.exe) only works when the KZPSAs are
on the primary segment (so you swap the boards around to
upgrade the firmware if necessary)
- I thought some of the low end graphics boards had to be
on the primary as well. Not sure on this one. I tend
to yank the graphics boards once things are set up.
In practice this does not present problems. It does cause a bit of
gymnastics. I tended to fill up the primary slots first then put things
onto the secondary. For instance I've had several KZPSAs on the secondary
segment and have had no problems at all.
The primary bus is the one that UNIX calls 'pci0' in the boot messages
(e.g. 'pza0 at pci0' is a KZPSA on the primary PCI).
-------------------------------------------------------
Hi Guy,
We have had an upgrade from a 2100 to a 2100A. It was a cabinet system.
The upgrade involved a new backplane and a new motherboard (coincidently
with a change to a faster CPU and the addition of more memory).
The upgrade in our case involved upgrading from DU 3.2C to 3.2G (since 3.2C
does not support 2100A). The steps were:
1. Make tape backup of system
2. Upgrade firmware
3. Upgrade to 3.2G
4. Let the Digital engineer play with the hardware.
5. Reload firmware (since the hardware has changed) 6. Boot from generic
kernel and rebuild a new kernel for the new setup.
7. Let the users loose again.
Our only problems occurred because of our disk setup. We had 2 PCI
controllers and 2 EISA disk controllers. The disks on the PCI controllers
and those on the EISA controllers were mirrored so that the two halves of
the mirror were on different controllers. Because of the way we bought
these controllers, the set-up was:
XCR0 - EISA, XCR1 - PCI, XCR2 - PCI, XCR3 -EISA
Unfortunately, after the rebuild, the machine insisted on seeing:
XCR0 - EISA, XCR1 - EISA, XCR2 - PCI, XCR3 -PCI
This took a lot of time and effort to resolve.
I am not sure if DU 3.2D-1 runs with a 2100A, you should check in the
Installation Guide to see. 3.2G works and is quite painless to install.
Good luck,
Michael Bradford
Unix Group West
TeleDanmark EDB
Danmark
mjbr_at_tdk.dk
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Christophe Wolfhugel <wolf_at_pasteur.fr> Subject: Re: 2100 -> 2100A
upgrade: What's involved ?
To: dallaire_at_total.net (Guy Dallaire)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:16:51 +0200 (MET DST)
Upgrading to a 2100A is pretty easy, just check the supported OS revision.
3.2c is not, 3.2d dunno, 3.2g is okay, I do run 4.0.
Upgrading is around 2 hours work per machine, depending on how many
adapters it has. The kernel will probably have to be rebuilt.
First upgrade the OS, if needed. Be sure you have the firmware CDs for both
machines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Guy,
We did it late February,
(though in our case it was ... voluntarily ;-)
I suggest you to update to 3.2G before any other step (very easy since done
through setld), it could be very difficult (impossible ?) to do that after
(2100A is not in the HW supported list of 3.2D-1).
Also the firmware update is somewhat tricky or rather it is a
"one-and-only-path" process : you should follow this guide : "Upgrade to
AlphaServer 2100A" DEC # EK-2100A-UP.A02 (beware older versions !),
Just believe, follow and ye shall success !
The most annoying for us :
when upgrading from 2100 to 2100A, the original I/O card with the build-in
Ethernet interface is removed : so you MUST add an Ethernet adapter
(included in the upgrade kit) and of course rebuild the kernel ! Also you
have to change ALL your CPU-BOUND licences !! (eg : FLEXLM based).
Hope this helps,
Regards,
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------+ | Herve
DEMARTHE %^) E-Mail: demarthe_at_drfc.cad.cea.fr | |
CEA/DSM/DRFC/STEP Tel: +33 442257527 Fax: +33 442252661 | | CEN
Cadarache Bt 506 13108 St Paul Lez Durance FRANCE | | <<<
Aprendiz de todo, Maestro de nada ... >>> | | All opinions expressed
herein are mine and not those of CEA. |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We have a 2100 that we are in the process of a backplane upgrade to a
2100A, we are still studying some thigs.
1. The 2100A backplane upgrade requires 3.2G or higher 2. There is no
equivalent of the I/O slot in the 2100 in the 2100A so the SCSI card we
have in there now will have to be replaced by a PCI SCSI card that we just
ordered.
3. DEC told us the new backplane comes with a 100Meg Ethernet card. It
came with a 10Meg. After much complaining we now have a 100Meg.
We finally received the SCSI and Ethernet cards yesterday, now we just have
to find a good time to take the system down for the upgrade. We're running
3.2C right now, so we'll probably upgrade to 4.0b first and then install
the hardware.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Received on Fri Apr 11 1997 - 05:08:02 NZST