Is it OK to upgrade to 8.1 now
Any issues I may need to know before doing so?
There is an issue recognized by motorola with P9 boards. Upgrading to 8.1.4 in these may break the ethernet port. They said they were going to release a fix. it was due about 2 weeks ago. As usual, nothing yet
I am under the impression that 8.1 was more for Moto than the consumer.
Reason being that they rewrote a bunch of code that they we’re previously paying licensing on. So this release was more about cutting costs… from what I am hearing it is actually less stable than the previous release. So perhaps we are best to wait for 8.2
Can Anyone Verify This?
Definitely stay away if you are using NAT on the SMs. Wait for the next release.
We have upgraded all APs to 8.1, and I have to say it is more stable. When I reboot cluster of 6 AP with 360 SM-s I have one AP with 120 SM and it stays that way for days. Thosen’t matter that other neighburing AP have 50 users. With 7.3.6 I have noticed that trough time there was atomatgicly some cind of balacing.
We don’t use NAT, we are not planning to upgrade SM-s because of the enabeld DFS feature and high price of Prizm for +100 APs.
cvs wrote: Definitely stay away if you are using NAT on the SMs. Wait for the next release.
What are the issues with NAT on 8.1 ?
Thanks
Adam
Our experience, echoed by others, is that NAT under 8.1.4 is very unstable. Client experience is generally very spotty. Works great when it works, but half the time gives page could not be displayed errors. We didn’t keep it in place for very long for obvious reasons, so I can only give you a limited perspective. It seemed as if there were frequent crash dumps in the system logs, too.
See here for my post from that experience.
I don’t know what the current status is.
Hmmm… I upgraded two towers to 8.14 a week ago, both of which have a handful of customers with NAT. We did a followup today and nobody has experienced any problem whatsoever with it. All are P9 SM’s and P9 APs (running hardward scheduling).
None of the customers are doing anything silly likely doubleNAT, etc. That has always been a point of concern and we elliminate that whenerver we find it. All are either straight into the computer or to a switch. At least two have added a WirelessAP (Linksys) behind the switch.
I am holding off doing the other 20+ towers because of the threads, but so far we have not seen the symptoms described.
Will keep monitoring it closely to see what develops.
Paul
One important point, we did not upgrade our APs when we tested 8.1.4. Our entire network, with a few exceptions, implements Canopy’s NAT, so we’ll wait for more feedback like the above message to give it another try. I’ve been meaning to set up a lab test with it, but have not been able to afford the time yet. The upgrading of the AP side may well be a factor, but I’m pretty sure we were also hearing rumbling from those who had forged ahead fully.
I assume that everyone who is having trouble with 8.1 tested it in a lab environment first?
What? Who, me? Um… :roll:
We actually tested in house from our not-yet upgraded 7.3.6 APs, and initial testing was ok. Client worked great upon install. It wasn’t until there was heavier use that the problem was noticed. I have learned my lesson on this one, because it caused a weekend truck roll. We tested before, but we’ll be testing more fully before field deployment now. :shock:
My next question: How many people who upgraded to 8.x had problems with 7.3.6?
Thanks largely to your input on balancing signal strength at the AP, Jerry, we’ve got over 200 clients on 7.3.6 running like clockwork. We’re about to go triple digits on our main AP, and it’s running beautifully. We’re very pleased with the current firmware. Our primary concern is what happens when we can’t get any more 7.3.6 units.
The way that 8.1 is going, I’d say you probably won’t need to worry about that for a while 
I know that and you know that, but does Motorola know that? I just don’t want to see them cut to P10 hardware and suddenly we’re all stuck with v8 in it’s current state. That would be… disappointing.
I originally wrote a lot more here, and then thought better of it. <sigh>
I really like the promise version 8 holds. We just need NAT to work.