Is it recommended to upgrade the Enterprise Team Center "Master" at the same time as all providers or can this be done separately.
Will this work:
Saw this note on the (10.2) user guide:
Configure Enterprise Team Center - CA Application Performance Management - 10.2 - CA Technologies Documentation
You can connect APM 10.2 Providers to an APM 10.3 Master. This might affect network performance.
Has others in this community had experience upgrading their master and provider at different times? If so, please share your experiences!
I have checked with internal CGR team,
Provider: 10.5.1.8 this is not supported
They have to be on same level.
You can find below the feedback I have received from Development. I have requested for this compatibility information to be added to either the APM Compatibility Guides or documentation.
10.5.2 master is backward compatible with 10.5.1 providers so you upgrade master first and providers (even one by one) later.
This is not always true because master-provider backward compatibility is often broken (on purpose, of course).Master-providers feature was introduced in 10.2 and compatible releases are:- 10.3 with 10.2- 10.5.2 with 10.5.1 (10.5.2 contains some public rest API optimizations on master->provider link, thus the performance of public REST API will be downgraded, but most customer do not user public REST API so they won’t notice)
10.6 won’t be compatible again.
Great thanks for the detailed responses, it will be helpful when planning our current upgrade.
One major roadblock I see in the future with 10.6 is the ability to upgrade. We have multiple Production clusters that would be reporting to a Master ETC.
Luckily this isn't a problem now with our current versioning, but how will we upgrade once 10.6 rolls around? It seems like the only potential upgrade paths would be to:
A. Upgrade all of the production clusters at the same time (We usually test out one and let it bake to make sure no problems surface)
B. Disable Enterprise Team Center until all Production clusters are upgraded.
Both options don't seem ideal. Hopefully the engineering team has a plan for this