Content preview: I believe the incompatibility arises if you set SESSIONSECURITY to STRICT for your nodes. The default is TRANSITIONAL so you should be fine; IIRC the only communication problems we had when upgrading our servers to v7.1.8 was with library sharing. [...]
Content analysis details: (0.6 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.7 SPF_NEUTRAL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral) -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Barracuda-Connect: mx.gs.washington.edu[128.208.8.134] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1514931575 X-Barracuda-Encrypted: ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 X-Barracuda-URL: https://148.100.49.28:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at marist.edu X-Barracuda-Scan-Msg-Size: 3241 X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1 X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=3.5 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=5.5 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.46484 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- I believe the incompatibility arises if you set SESSIONSECURITY to STRICT for your nodes. The default is TRANSITIONAL so you should be fine; IIRC the only communication problems we had when upgrading our servers to v7.1.8 was with library sharing. That said, v7.1.8 was a huge change so I would test it if possible first. On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 05:12:44PM -0500, Tom Alverson wrote: > Thanks for that link, I am more worried about any "gotcha's" caused by > upgrading the client to 7.1.8 or 8.1.2 before the storage servers get > upgraded (and start using the new authentication). What I had not > realized until I saw the chart is that the new clients are NOT backward > compatible with old storage servers (which doesn't really affect me since > we have those all at 7.1.7.2 now). > > > *IBM SPECTRUM PROTECT CLIENT SUPPORT* > > includes the Backup-Archive, API, UNIX HSM, and Web clients > that are compatible with, and currently supported with, > IBM Spectrum Protect Servers and Storage Agents. > *IBM Spectrum Protect* > *Client Version* > *Supported IBM Spectrum Protect* > *Server and Storage Agent Versions* > 8.1.2 > 8.1, 7.1 > 8.1.0 > 8.1, 7.1, 6.3.x 1 > 7.1.8 > 8.1, 7.1 > 7.1 > 8.1, 7.1, 6.3.x 1 > 6.4 1 > 8.1, 7.1, 6.3.x 1 > 6.3 1, 2 > 8.1, 7.1, 6.3.x 1 > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Skylar Thompson <skyl...@u.washington.edu> > wrote: > > > There's pretty wide version compatibility between clients and servers; we > > didn't go v7 server-side until pretty recently but have been running the v7 > > client for a while. IBM has a matrix published here: > > > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21053218 > > > > For basic backups and restores I think you can deviate even more, but > > obviously you won't get support. > > > > On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 03:14:24PM -0500, Tom Alverson wrote: > > > Our TSM storage servers were all upgraded last year to 7.1.7.2 (before > > this > > > new security update came out). Now I am wondering if I should start > > using > > > the updated client or not? If the servers stay at 7.1.7.2 for now is > > > there any harm in using the newer client? I would have to use 7.1.8.0 on > > > anything older than 2012. I saw some email traffic earlier that once you > > > use the new authentication mode on a node you can't go back? But it > > seems > > > that would not be possible until our storage servers get upgraded. > > > > > > Is there any downside in my case (where the storage servers are still at > > > 7.1.7.2) of using the latest client versions in the interim?? Our > > current > > > standard client versions now are 7.1.6.4 for 2008 and older, and 8.1.0.0 > > > (yes the horrible buggy one) on newer servers. > > > > > > Tom > > > > -- > > -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) > > -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator > > -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 > > -- University of Washington School of Medicine > > -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354 -- University of Washington School of Medicine