Sounds like you're needlessly complicating things to accommodate people who aren't able to follow well established instructions. On Jun 28, 2016 7:33 AM, "drew Roberts" <zotz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Cowboy <c...@cwf1.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 22:21:31 -0400 >> drew Roberts <zotz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > is there a safe way to have rivendell make this check >> > and run the rdadmin bits automatically on such an upgrade? >> > >> > How can such automation of the database upgrade blow things up >> > horribly and thus make this a terrible idea? >> >> Submitted for your approval.... >> > > ~;-) Right. > >> >> Take a plant like mine, or any cluster really... >> >> Say, I were to walk in and see that TV production is not currently >> being used, so do an upgrade there. >> The system auto-detects an obsolete database for itself, and does the >> auto-update you suggest. That database lives on a redundant hot-standby >> pair of servers serving the whole plant. >> >> What about the other 8 or so radio installations here, that all use >> the same database ? OK, some of them could crash horribly, and it >> wouldn't be fatal, but the live network feeds could potentially affect >> several hundred professional broadcast facilities across the country, >> and in our case across continents ( plural ), that pay us good money >> for that to not happen. >> >> Better, would be for the upgraded install to throw up a warning >> that the configured database is obsolete, so functionality >> may be limited, as well as un-squashing bugs, if it'll start at all. >> >> But in the final analysis, Rivendell is a *professional* broadcast >> play-out system, by and **for** professionals. >> In a professional environment, particularly one of a level that >> requires an actual, real system administrator, to actually administer >> systems, some things should not be automated, IMHO. >> > > I am more trying to reduce the noise on the lists where time is spent > helping with the same problems over the years. So, while I agree that some > things should not be automated, we are running these systems on computers > and it seems to make some sense to try and automate what can safely be > automated. > > So, perhaps a Standalone/Networked flag/config option could solve that. > > Let's say on initial setup it asks if this is a standalone or networked > setup. If standalone, it further asks if you want auto or manual database > upgrades and explains once again what happens if you choose manual or auto. > > If it is a standalone system and auto db upgrades were chosen, it can > auto-backup db and then auto-upgrade on first startup after any update that > changes db version. > > Would that break any standalone systems? > > >> -- >> Cowboy >> >> http://cowboy.cwf1.com >> >> all the best, > > drew > -- > Bahamain Or Nuttin - http://www.bahamianornuttin.com > <http://www.bahamianornuttin.com/> > > _______________________________________________ > Rivendell-dev mailing list > Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org > http://caspian.paravelsystems.com/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Rivendell-dev mailing list Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org http://caspian.paravelsystems.com/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
