Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of james.mk.green@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.215.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1413405556270-4686426.post@n4.nabble.com>
References: <1413405556270-4686426.post@n4.nabble.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:07:53 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAMH6+awWT8ykan3kxYP5jfnSkAoCP0_oyHVWjbjPRs3au0iRyw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 5.9 to 5.10 Upgrade
From: James Green <james.mk.green@gmail.com>
To: users <users@activemq.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3eeee0995f90505da67ba

--001a11c3eeee0995f90505da67ba
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

We have a hub/spoke architecture. We did a rolling upgrade from 5.7.0 to
5.10.0 starting with the hub instance. So long as the client/server & peer
protocols don't become incompatible it's fine.

On 15 October 2014 21:39, djdick <djdick@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

> We're looking to upgrade from 5.9 to 5.10 and are using a network of
> brokers
> topology. In order to keep downtime to a minimum we're looking at upgrading
> one server at a time while keeping the other servers active. For example
> server A stays active while we shutdown server B and upgrade from 5.9 to
> 5.10. Then bring server B up while we take down server A and upgrade it to
> 5.10.
>
> Has anyone else tried this?
> Will this allow us to upgrade our environment without any downtime?
> Has anyone experienced problems with 2 different versions of ActiveMQ
> communicating with each other (5.9 to 5.10)?
>
> Any guidance or experience you could share with this process is greatly
> appreciated.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/5-9-to-5-10-Upgrade-tp4686426.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

--001a11c3eeee0995f90505da67ba--