On 23 December 2016 at 18:10, Gianluca Cecchi <gianluca.cecchi@gmail.com> wrote:
Is there any particular technical reason for this substantial difference? Clearly they are not the same sw but it seems strange to me this discrepancy.
This is because RHEV 3.6 engine was only supported on RHEL6 while RHV 4.0 engine is only supported on RHEL7, so an upgrade (read: re-installation) of the underlying OS (And hence, the whole engine software stack) is required. oVirt 3.6 engine OTOH was also tested on CentOS 7, so you can upgrade it in-place to oVirt 4.0. Note: oVirt 4.0 engine is not supported on CentOS 6 at all, so you shouldn't try to upgrade in-place on CentOS 6.
Suppose I have a mix of oVirt and RHEV environments it could be simpler to have a common path, where possible.
For example, can I also use the documented RHEV approach for oVirt? At what extent?
Yes you can. The RHV upgrade path was also tested on oVirt, just keep the CentOS version you are running oVirt on as close as possible to the RHEL versions you are running RHV on... Having said the above, I know vaguely that Red Hat has some all-on-nothing rules when it comes to licensing, so a mixed RHV/oVirt environment may not meet the RHEL/RHV licensing terms... Then again, I'm not a licensing expert... -- Barak Korren bkorren@redhat.com RHCE, RHCi, RHV-DevOps Team https://ifireball.wordpress.com/