Skip to content

Conversation

renshuki
Copy link
Contributor

@renshuki renshuki commented May 16, 2025

Current wording suggests that no downtime is expected during upgrades whatever the deployment topology is.
Non-HA deployments (on single AZ) are subject to downtime as the Elasticsearch node upgrade happens inline with a rolling change.

Also for Kibana upgrade, all Kibana instances are shutdown simultaneously which makes Kibana inaccessible during the Kibana upgrade plan whatever the zone distribution is.

Preview here:

@bmorelli25 bmorelli25 closed this May 20, 2025
@bmorelli25 bmorelli25 reopened this May 20, 2025
@bmorelli25 bmorelli25 requested a review from a team as a code owner May 20, 2025 21:21
@eedugon
Copy link
Contributor

eedugon commented May 21, 2025

@shainaraskas , this looks good to me, just a few comments for your review:

  • We could link to the doc that describes HA and non-HA clusters in ECH.
  • We could link to Kibana upgrade description in the new comment about Kibana, where it's also explained that Kibana rolling-upgrade is not an option (Kibana upgrade implies Kibana downtime).

@eedugon eedugon added the Team:Admin Issues owned by the Admin Docs Team label May 22, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@shainaraskas shainaraskas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

to address @eedugon's comments:

  • linking, or being more precise about what the minimum node configuration is, is a good idea
  • kibana link: we could be more precise about the kibana downtime thing, but the other upgrade doc is specific to self-managed might be misleading. Edu, in future, we could maybe use a snippet to reuse this info if you think it's helpful for the other deployment types

provided some suggestions to address this stuff

@eedugon eedugon self-assigned this May 23, 2025
@eedugon
Copy link
Contributor

eedugon commented May 23, 2025

As agreed with @renshuki , we'll do some extra refinement and share with you the results before merging.
Thanks!

@eedugon eedugon requested a review from shainaraskas May 29, 2025 12:10
@eedugon
Copy link
Contributor

eedugon commented May 29, 2025

@shainaraskas : I'm re-requesting your review here, I have adapted your changes and included all the information related with this PR (very important in my opinion (thanks @renshuki ) ) in a dedicated section of the doc.

I have also updated the link to HA in ECH to the document we recently added in the other PR :) As we are planning to improve that one soon, better to link to that from this ECH upgrade doc.

@renshuki : let us know how you feel it, and if it covers your original goal also.

Preview here:

Copy link
Collaborator

@shainaraskas shainaraskas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I really like this approach! thank you both

cc: @eedugon just in case gh won't notify you automatically

@renshuki
Copy link
Contributor Author

@renshuki : let us know how you feel it, and if it covers your original goal also.

Thank you @shainaraskas and @eedugon for the great rework on this PR, I have nothing to add on my side 😄 All the points I originally mentioned are covered.

@eedugon eedugon enabled auto-merge (squash) May 30, 2025 07:26
@eedugon eedugon merged commit 4ffdf8a into main May 30, 2025
7 of 8 checks passed
@eedugon eedugon deleted the renshuki-ech-uprade-doc branch May 30, 2025 07:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Team:Admin Issues owned by the Admin Docs Team

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants