Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Attention: The Community will be in read-only mode on 12/14/2017 from 12:00 am pacific to 11:30 am.

During this time you will only be able to see content. Other interactions such as posting, replying to questions, or marking content as helpful will be disabled for few hours.

We apologize for the inconvenience while we perform important updates to the Community.

New Member

UCS B200M2 Version 2.1(1d) to 2.2(1d) upgrade Query

Hi,

I am planning to upgrade our UCS B-Series server(B200M2) to 2.2(1d) from 2.1(1d).

While i was reading the Cisco document for the upgrade, they were specifying about a bug CSCuh61202 ( https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCuh61202 ) .It is saying that "If you are upgrading from a release prior to 2.1(3a) or 2.2(1b), you may be impacted by CSCuh61202.".

But while i am reading about the bug, it that it is saying that the affected version is 2.1(2a)A.

So my question is, should i bother about this bug ,since my current version is 2.1(1d). ????

 

Everyone's tags (2)
7 REPLIES
Cisco Employee

Hi Jaa,When upgrading your

Hi Jaa,

When upgrading your environment, you should still consider this defect. The reason for this is because when they said that it was found on 2.1(2a), it means that this is the release when it was first found, it doesn't mean that it is the only version that is affected by this defect. If any of your blades are using the 1240 or the 1280 VIC adapter, I highly recommend you to take in consideration this defect.

New Member

I am planning an upgrade from

I am planning an upgrade from 2.0 3c to 2.2 1d

I do not see CSCuh61202 listed in the release notes of 2.2 or open caveats. However I do see CSCuh61202 in the release notes and open caveats for 2.1 

Does this mean I can safely ignore this issue?

Thank you

New Member

hi,I contacted cisco TAC

hi,

I contacted cisco TAC prior to my upgrade..

They also confirmed that if the current version is running prior to 2.1(3a) , then i should upgrade server firmware first and then upgrade the Infrastructure Firmware.

I followed it and the upgrade was successful. I upgraded the UCS in DR first and observed for a week. Everything is working fine. Then last Sunday i upgraded the UCS in DC. Done :)

 

New Member

Jaa,Thanks for the follow up.

Jaa,

Thanks for the follow up.  I was wondering about the adapter vs blade firmware application.  The upgrade document says to upgrade the adapters before starting infrastructure firmware, but the bug report says to schedule adapter/blade firmware upgrade before starting the infrastructure upgrade.  If I am reading your last post correclty you upgraded the blades and not just the adapters prior to your infrastructure upgrade and all went well.  Did I read that correctly?  Thanks.

New Member

We had this issue when we

We had this issue when we upgraded from 2.1 to 2.2.  Now I need to upgrade to 2.2(3b) to protect from the BASH vulnerability.  Does anyone know if we still have to worry about this defect or can we do the infrastructure upgrade without any 'special' concerns?

New Member

Hi friend,in our environment

Hi friend,

in our environment also, its full of cisco devices and mostly all devices were affected by this shellshock bash vulnerability. i contacted cisco TAC for querying about all those devices we implemented but since each TAC engineer are specialized on a specific domain...they were unable to answer all. Other wise i need to raise separate TAC for each devices. when i checked their releases before few days, they said that there is no work around at the device side. They asked to harden the firewall and IPS. Actually they released IPS signature to prevent the shellshock attack.

Also you should upgrade both infrastructure and server firmware. Both firmwares should be of same version.

I recommend you to open a TAC request and keep the engineer on hold while you performing the upgrade process.

New Member

Yes. I update the server

Yes. I update the server firmware first. Then updated the infrastructure firmware. From 2.1 version onwards, we have auto install option. I used it. Because of the bug issue,There I first updated the server firmware.
754
Views
16
Helpful
7
Replies
CreatePlease to create content