ELM Version Upgrade 701->702 - New Server Machine or Same Server Machine
When upgrading from ELM701 (running on Server01) to ELM702 the instructions workflow from IBM involves setting up a staging server and doing a test migration on the staging server (Server02) prior to production migration
Or the production upgrade could be done on Server02 and Server02 could become the new production server. This would require either a ServerRename on the ELM repositories or else a network alias could be reconfigured so the network now recognises Server02 as having the same FQDN address as the old Server01
The advantage of staying on the same sever Server01 for production EML702 is that no server rename or network alias reconfiguration is required.
The advantage of going to a new server Server02 for production EML702 is that if anything goes wrong during the production upgrade process then original 701 production server is still available for quick rollback without any disruption to users
Which of these approaches is the more typical for ELM upgrades?
Accepted answer
My perception is that it's most common to upgrade the original server, since there is an on-going performance penalty when running a renamed server in production. That said, some organizations may use DNS tricks to avoid doing a server rename and thus make the test server the new prod server.
Comments
3 other answers
Using a reverse proxy to serve the (unchanging) external URI means you could if you want use your server02 method without a server rename - you reconfigure the reverse proxy to direct requests to server02 (or server01) on its hostname, without a server rename.
Thanks for all the feedback Daniel, Davyd, Ian.