> "3.11 performs close to parity with 2.1/2.2. 3.0 does not. If we recommend > people upgrade from 2.1 -> 3.0 -> 4.0, we are asking them to have a cluster > in a regressed performance state for potentially months as they execute > their upgrade." > > Did I get anything wrong here Mick? ^ >
That's correct Josh. >From tickets like those listed, and from experience, we recommend folk avoid 3.0 altogether. This has only been made more evident by witnessing the benefits from 3.0 → 3.11 upgrades. My recommendation remains 2.*→3.11→4.0. And I don't believe I'm alone. Though if a user was already on 3.0, then I would (of course) recommend an upgrade directly to 4.0. I feel like I'm just splitting straws at this point, since we have accepted (folk willing to help with) both paths to 4.0, and I can't see how we stop recommending 2.*→3.11 upgrades.
