On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 06:23:24PM -0400, James Westby wrote:
> We're interested in moving our deployment of udd away from sqlite to
> postgres, and we're interested in doing the same thing for the package
> importer deployment.
> There are two main reasons for this: 1) that we were asked to by
>
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 18:12:06 +0100, James Westby
wrote:
> I think I've addressed all the comments so far, and I'm keen to move
> ahead with the deployment before we get too close to the
> weekend. Therefore if there are no objections I'd like to merge these
> and deploy Wed morning UK time.
Hi,
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 11:03:41 +0100, James Westby
wrote:
> My apologies, there was some wrong default branch somewhere. They are
> all re-proposed now:
>
> https://code.launchpad.net/~james-w/udd/storm/+merge/113003
> https://code.launchpad.net/~james-w/udd/storm-unicode-fixes/+merge/113004
>
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 11:54:00 +0200, John Arbash Meinel
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 7/2/2012 9:36 AM, James Westby wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:29:08 -0400, James Westby
> > wrote:
> >> I need to do that, as well as some unicode fixes. I'll get those
> >>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/2/2012 9:36 AM, James Westby wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:29:08 -0400, James Westby
> wrote:
>> I need to do that, as well as some unicode fixes. I'll get those
>> done and up for review by the end of this week.
>
> Belatedly here they are:
>
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:29:08 -0400, James Westby
wrote:
> I need to do that, as well as some unicode fixes. I'll get those done
> and up for review by the end of this week.
Belatedly here they are:
https://code.launchpad.net/~james-w/udd/storm/+merge/112983
https://code.launchpad.net/~james
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:29:08 -0400, James Westby
wrote:
> I need to do that, as well as some unicode fixes. I'll get those done
> and up for review by the end of this week.
I didn't manage to get all the changes made, so I'll continue with this
now and we'll push the deployment back until the re
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:22:22 +0200, Vincent Ladeuil
wrote:
> > Rollback is to revert the storm code again
>
> Restore the dbs.
I don't think we should do that if we have no evidence of data
corruption. We'd be repeating work for no benefit.
> > Rollback is to stop the importer, revert
> James Westby writes:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:35:44 +0200, John Arbash Meinel
wrote:
>> As I understand it, James still needs to do some work to get Storm to
>> not require as strict of an isolation level. For me personally, I'd
>> rather he was the one doing the rollout a
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:35:44 +0200, John Arbash Meinel
wrote:
> As I understand it, James still needs to do some work to get Storm to
> not require as strict of an isolation level. For me personally, I'd
> rather he was the one doing the rollout and we can help monitor it.
> But we certainly want
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
...
> We'd definitely be in favour of this. Do we need to co-ordinate
> timings with you, or can we just fire off the MP and let you
> handle it, the deploy & rollback?
>
> From our end, it would probably be best if you could do the
> rollout with t
On 21 June 2012 12:23, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> ...
>
>> We haven't had any movement on this for a few days.
>>
>> To sum up, this is my understanding of the situation. 1. We need to
>> switch our udd to postgres 2. We need to make code change
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
...
> We haven't had any movement on this for a few days.
>
> To sum up, this is my understanding of the situation. 1. We need to
> switch our udd to postgres 2. We need to make code changes to do
> so 3. We want to integrate these changes into trunk
On 19 June 2012 12:43, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> ...
>> Some routes are: - move to postgresql using the lower level APIs
>> and add storm later - work on the storm patchset to make it
>> reliable with sqlite - do both postgresql and sqlite at t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
...
> Some routes are: - move to postgresql using the lower level APIs
> and add storm later - work on the storm patchset to make it
> reliable with sqlite - do both postgresql and sqlite at the same
> time.
>
> My recommendation, given the existing i
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:09 AM, James Westby
wrote:
>> Since https://bugs.launchpad.net/udd/+bug/724893 has been filed, we
>> haven't understood *when* the importer fails but we know it can fail and
>> it failed more often recently (and a lot during your first attempt if I
>> remember correctly).
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:45:26 +0200, Vincent Ladeuil
wrote:
> > James Westby writes:
>
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:34:12 +0200, Vincent Ladeuil
> wrote:
> >> > It's not magic. It's moving from a database that's not designed for
> >> > concurrent use to one that is designed for c
> James Westby writes:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:34:12 +0200, Vincent Ladeuil
wrote:
>> > It's not magic. It's moving from a database that's not designed for
>> > concurrent use to one that is designed for concurrent use.
>>
>> Despite not being designed for concurrent u
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:34:12 +0200, Vincent Ladeuil
wrote:
> > It's not magic. It's moving from a database that's not designed for
> > concurrent use to one that is designed for concurrent use.
>
> Despite not being designed for concurrent use, it *is* used this way and
> lock contention
> Jonathan Lange writes:
>> There is a work in progress regarding the jubany package importer
>> deployment, let's try to no step on each other feet ;)
>>
> What's the work in progress?
Setting up a quantal lxc container that can be used for both test and
production with
On 15 June 2012 09:56, Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>> James Westby writes:
>
> > Hi,
>
> > We're interested in moving our deployment of udd away from sqlite
> > to postgres, and we're interested in doing the same thing for the
> > package importer deployment.
>
> There is a work in pro
> James Westby writes:
> Hi,
> We're interested in moving our deployment of udd away from sqlite
> to postgres, and we're interested in doing the same thing for the
> package importer deployment.
There is a work in progress regarding the jubany package importer
deployment, l
On 14/06/12 23:23, James Westby wrote:
>
> 3) Deploy the storm code, but migrate the db to postgres at the same
> time. It introduces more changes at the same time so is riskier,
> but we're fairly sure we won't see the locking issues with
> postgres. I'm pretty sure that we can s
Hi,
We're interested in moving our deployment of udd away from sqlite to
postgres, and we're interested in doing the same thing for the package
importer deployment.
There are two main reasons for this: 1) that we were asked to by
canonical sysadmins, and 2) because it's the right thing to do. udd
24 matches
Mail list logo
