Open Stack

I think that we need to be good citizens and at least add dummy data.
Because it is impossible to know who all is using this, the list you have
is probably complete. But Trove has been available for quite some time and
all these users will not be listening on this thread. Basically anytime you
have a database migration that adds a required field you *have* to alter
the existing rows. If we don't we're basically telling everyone who
upgrades that we the 'Database as a Service' team don't care about data
integrity in our own product :)

Robert


On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Greg Hill <greg.hill at rackspace.com> wrote:

>  We did consider doing that, but decided it wasn't really any different
> from the other options as it required the deployer to know to alter that
> data.  That would require the fewest code changes, though.  It was also my
> understanding that mysql variants were a possibility as well (percona and
> mariadb), which is what brought on the objection to just defaulting in
> code.  Also, we can't derive the version being used, so we *could* fill it
> with a dummy version and assume mysql, but I don't feel like that solves
> the problem or the objections to the earlier solutions.  And then we also
> have bogus data in the database.
>
>   Since there's no perfect solution, I'm really just hoping to gather
> consensus among people who are running existing trove installations and
> have yet to upgrade to the newer code about what would be easiest for them.
>  My understanding is that list is basically HP and Rackspace, and maybe
> Ebay?, but the hope was that bringing the issue up on the list might
> confirm or refute that assumption and drive the conversation to a suitable
> workaround for those affected, which hopefully isn't that many
> organizations at this point.
>
>  The options are basically:
>
>  1. Put the onus on the deployer to correct existing records in the
> database.
> 2. Have the migration script put dummy data in the database which you have
> to correct.
> 3. Put the onus on the deployer to fill out values in the config value
>
>  Greg
>
>  On Dec 18, 2013, at 8:46 PM, Robert Myers <myer0052 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  There is the database migration for datastores. We should add a function
> to  back fill the existing data with either a dummy data or set it to
> 'mysql' as that was the only possibility before data stores.
> On Dec 18, 2013 3:23 PM, "Greg Hill" <greg.hill at rackspace.com> wrote:
>
>> I've been working on fixing a bug related to migrating existing
>> installations to the new datastore code:
>>
>>  https://bugs.launchpad.net/trove/+bug/1259642
>>
>>  The basic gist is that existing instances won't have any data in the
>> datastore_version_id field in the database unless we somehow populate that
>> data during migration, and not having that data populated breaks a lot of
>> things (including the ability to list instances or delete or resize old
>> instances).  It's impossible to populate that data in an automatic, generic
>> way, since it's highly vendor-dependent on what database and version they
>> currently support, and there's not enough data in the older schema to
>> populate the new tables automatically.
>>
>>  So far, we've come up with some non-optimal solutions:
>>
>>  1. The first iteration was to assume 'mysql' as the database manager on
>> instances without a datastore set.
>> 2. The next iteration was to make the default value be configurable in
>> trove.conf, but default to 'mysql' if it wasn't set.
>> 3. It was then proposed that we could just use the 'default_datastore'
>> value from the config, which may or may not be set by the operator.
>>
>>  My problem with any of these approaches beyond the first is that
>> requiring people to populate config values in order to successfully migrate
>> to the newer code is really no different than requiring them to populate
>> the new database tables with appropriate data and updating the existing
>> instances with the appropriate values.  Either way, it's now highly
>> dependent on people deploying the upgrade to know about this change and
>> react accordingly.
>>
>>  Does anyone have a better solution that we aren't considering?  Is this
>> even worth the effort given that trove has so few current deployments that
>> we can just make sure everyone is populating the new tables as part of
>> their upgrade path and not bother fixing the code to deal with the legacy
>> data?
>>
>>  Greg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131219/254baae5/attachment.html>