I’m currently configuring an environment for a web site. As I’m using azure, I’d like to use deployment slots in order to ensure that users won’t get any downtime. While I understand the goal of deployment slots, I have difficulties to understand how they could be usable in my case.
Basically, the site is using a database that will evolve as the times goes. In other words, most of my releases will alter the schema of the database and I can’t ensure that it will always be backward compatible (indeed I might delete columns or something).
Therefore, there are two solutions in my mind . Either both DS will share the same database or they use different ones.
However, if they share the same database, after the deployment is executed in the staging DS, it can be that the production one start failing (because it’s referencing a deleted column for example). So I can’t use DS the way.
Using two separate databases seems to be a viable option... if they are synchronized. Indeed, if the db of the staging db is only there to validate a deployment, I can’t swap the site to this DS while production DS is updated, as the data of this DB won’t be up to date. Therefore I need to ensure that data are in sync BUT that when the staging gets updated, this sync is somehow paused as the schema won’t be the same anymore...
All the article I read talk about DS without really mentioning the database issue, so I don’t really understand how it is supposed to work. Can some enlighten me a bit please ?
Related
What I mean by witable is that you can CRUD on each database, and it automatically syncs with the other so that all of them are synced all the time (as much as possible).
I want to start a project for a company with some tricks.
The company is present in many locations (at least 5) and wants the app to run locally (with local database), but when there's a change(Create Update or Delete), the change is propagated to the other databases.
The goal is to have them all synced at every moment, but with the possibility that if internet connection is lost on one site, they continue to use the app properly since they are actually connected to the local database. That's why they don't one a totally online database.
They use MongoDB.
I saw the replica sets technology, but since it's with a unique master, it seems complicated.
Please can you share solutions to such a situation?
I've been looking at using service fabric as a platform for a new solution that we are building and I am getting hung up on data / stage management. I really like the concept of reliable services and the actor model and as we have started to prototype out some things it seems be working well.
With that beings said I am getting hung up on state management and how I would use it in a 'real' project. I am also a little concerned with how the data feels like a black box that I can't interrogate or manipulate directly if needed. A couple scenarios I've thought about are:
How would I share state between two developers on a project? I have an Actor and as long as I am debugging the actor my state is maintained, replicated, etc. However when I shut it down the state is all lost. More importantly someone else on my team would need to set up the same data as I do, this is fine for transactional data - but certain 'master' data should just be constant.
Likewise I am curious about how I would migrate data changes between environments. We periodically pull production data down form our SQL Azure instance today to keep our test environment fresh, we also push changes up from time to time depending on the requirements of the release.
I have looked at the backup and restore process, but it feels cumbersome, especially in the development scenario. Asking someone to (or scripting the) restore on every partition of every stateful service seems like quite a bit of work.
I think that the answer to both of these questions is that I can use the stateful services, but I need to rely on an external data store for anything that I want to retain. The service would check for state when it was activated and use the stateful service almost as a write-through cache. I'm not suggesting that this needs to be a uniform design choice, more on a service by service basis - depending on the service needs.
Does that sound right, am I overthinking this, missing something, etc?
Thanks
Joe
If you want to share Actor state between developers, you can use a shared cluster. (in Azure or on-prem). Make sure you always do upgrade-style deployments, so state will survive. State is persisted if you configure the Actor to do so.
You can migrate data by doing a backup of all replica's of your service and restoring them on a different cluster. (have the service running and trigger data-loss). It's cumbersome yes, but at this time it's the only way. (or store state externally)
Note that state is safe in the cluster, it's stored on disk and replicated. There's no need to have an external store, provided you do regular state backups and keep them outside the cluster. Stateful services can be more than just caches.
I'm trying to set up an architecture with 2 databases, say preview and live, that have the exact same schemas. The use case is that edits can be made to the preview database and then pushed to the live database after they are vetted and approved. The production application would read from the live database.
What would be the most appropriate way to push all data from the preview database to the live database without bringing the live database down? Ideally the copy from preview to live would be an atomic transaction.
I've worked with this type of setup in MSSQL, but I'm fairly new to Postgres. So I'm open to hearing other ways to architect this (with Schemas perhaps?).
EDIT: The main reason to use separate databases is that I may need more than 1 target database (not just a single "live" database). I also may need to switch target databases on the fly without altering the source database schema.
I think what you're looking for is a "hot standby". This would be a separate instance of Postgresql, possibly on the same server but usually not, which is a near-real-time replica of the primary server.
In broad strokes, this is done by shipping the binary transaction logs from the primary server to the backup server, and then "replaying" them there. The exact mechanism for transmitting the logs may vary depending on your requirements.
Fortunately, the docs on this are excellent:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/warm-standby.html
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/hot-standby.html
I'm using MongoDB as my database, and as a first-time back-end developer the ease with which I can delete an entire database/collection really bothers me.
Simply typing db.collection.remove() removes all records from that collection!
I know that an effective backup strategy should render this a non-issue, but I occasionally do run .remove() on some collections, and I'd hate to type in the wrong collection name by accident and (a) have to go through a backup restore, and (b) lose whatever data I had gathered between the backup and the restore, especially as my app gathers a lot of user data.
Is there any 'safeguard' I can set up my database to use, even if it's just a warning/confirmation that says
"Yo, are you sure you want to remove everything from <collectionname>? Choose: Yes/No"
User roles won't fix your problem. If your account has permissions to delete one user, you could accidentally delete them all. If your account has permissions to update an attribute for one user, you could accidentally update all of your users.
There's a simple fix for this however.
Step 0: Backup your database. And test your backups regularly. And make sure you get alerted if the backup did not run, or errored. Replica sets are not backups. I know this is obvious, but evidentally it's not obvious to everybody.
Step 1: Write a web admin GUI interface for your database. This it will only take a day or two -- and it should be simple enough that a secretary or intern could use it without fear for your data. (If you think this will take a long time, find a framework with more bells and whistles. Your admin console doesn't even need to be written in the same language as your app.)
Step 2: Data migrations (maintenance transformations of your database) should always be run from scripts checked into source control and tested on non-prod beforehand. The script could be as simple as mongo -e "foo.update(blah)", but you should run it as a script to avoid cut-n-paste errors. Ideally, you would even have a checklist for all migrations. (Check that you have a recent backup. Check the database log and system load beforehand. Write a before and after query that will tell you if the migration was successful...)
Step 3: You now no longer need to use the production Mongo console. So don't. It's a useful tool for development, but that's only needed on local development databases.
The above-mentioned Roles might be useful for read-only queries. But you can already do that against the non-master replica set member.
tl;dr: You can go pretty far using cowboy admin techniques, but eventually you're going to figure out that it's better (and not much more work) to automate everything.
There is nothing you can do in the current version to provide this functionality.
In a future version when user defined roles are available you could define a role which allows insert() and update() but not remove() or drop() etc. and therefore make yourself log-in as a different higher-role user, but that's not available in the current (2.4) version.
i know this is an often asked question on these boards. And usually the question has been about how to manage the changes being made to the database before you even get around to deploy them.Mostly the answer has been to script the database and save it under sourcecontrol and then any additional updates are saved as scripts under version control too.(ex. Tool to upgrade SQL Express database after deployment)
my question is when is it best to apply the database updates , in the installer or when the new version first runs and connects to the database? note this is a WinApp that is deployed to customers each have their own databases.
One thing to add to the script: Back up the database (or at least the tables you're changing!) before applying the changes.
As a user I think I'd prefer it happens during the install, and going a little further that the installer can roll itself back in the event of a failure. My thinking here is that if I am installing an update, I'd like to know when the update is done that it actually is done and has succeeded. I don't want a message coming up the next time I run it informing me that something failed and I've potentially lost all my data. I would assume that a system admin would probably also appreciate install time feedback (of course, that doesn't matter if your web app isn't something that will be installed on a network). Also, as ראובן said, backing up the database would be a nice convenience.
You haven't said much about the architecture of the application, but since an installer is involved I assume it's a client/server application.
If you have a server installer, that's where you want to put it, since the database structure is only going to change once. Since the client installers are going to need to know about the change, it would be nice to have a way to detect the database version change, and for the old client to be able to download the client update from the server automatically and apply it.
If you only have a client installer, I still think it's better to put it there (maybe as a custom action that fires off the executable for updating the database). But it really isn't going to matter, because conceptually one installer or first-time user of the new version is going to have to fire off the changes to the database anyway. The database changes are going to put structural locks on the database so, in practical terms, everyone is going to have to be kicked off the system at that time for the database update to be applied.
Of course, this is all BS if it's not client-server.