|
|
Sponsored Content
The Lounge
What is on Your Mind?
Update on vB3 Migration to Discourse - Issues and Status of BBCode Transformations
Post 303045854 by Neo on Wednesday 15th of April 2020 10:27:26 PM
04-15-2020
Administrator
Update:
Have made some core changes and am currently running both our staging server and our production server in "two container" mode; where the database and the web app are in two separate docker containers:
My next plan is to set up ngnix as a reverse proxy on the staging server to a unix domain socket in the docker container, and decouple the network (TCP/IP) from the web app in the container.
This will permit us to completely rebuild the app, add new plugins, add custom code, etc. to the web app with almost zero down time because each container will have it's one unique shared (persistant) directory and we can symlink from outside the container to inside.
This means, for example, on nginx we can just change symlinks to move from one live container to the other.
OBTW, on apache (which we are not using in this setup), apache will not let us set up the proxy configuration with a symlink, so a restart of the web app is required. It's not a big deal; so if you are running apache and want to integrate these container-based web apps into your virtual host configurations, it is not a problem at all.
I have been doing these changes in a controlled, step-by-step manner, since these are "breaking changes". However, after all done. The site will be much more robust when we are done.
Honestly, I think the "two container" solution should be standard OOTB and it not "an advanced configuration" like Discourse meta says. It's actually straight forward and the best way to go and the setup is actually straight forward (two containers). The reverse proxy server to a unix domain socket is a bit more "advanced" so I do understand why folks call this "advanced"
Have made some core changes and am currently running both our staging server and our production server in "two container" mode; where the database and the web app are in two separate docker containers:
My next plan is to set up ngnix as a reverse proxy on the staging server to a unix domain socket in the docker container, and decouple the network (TCP/IP) from the web app in the container.
This will permit us to completely rebuild the app, add new plugins, add custom code, etc. to the web app with almost zero down time because each container will have it's one unique shared (persistant) directory and we can symlink from outside the container to inside.
This means, for example, on nginx we can just change symlinks to move from one live container to the other.
OBTW, on apache (which we are not using in this setup), apache will not let us set up the proxy configuration with a symlink, so a restart of the web app is required. It's not a big deal; so if you are running apache and want to integrate these container-based web apps into your virtual host configurations, it is not a problem at all.
I have been doing these changes in a controlled, step-by-step manner, since these are "breaking changes". However, after all done. The site will be much more robust when we are done.
Honestly, I think the "two container" solution should be standard OOTB and it not "an advanced configuration" like Discourse meta says. It's actually straight forward and the best way to go and the setup is actually straight forward (two containers). The reverse proxy server to a unix domain socket is a bit more "advanced" so I do understand why folks call this "advanced"
This User Gave Thanks to Neo For This Post:
|
|
6 More Discussions You Might Find Interesting
1. Shell Programming and Scripting
Hi All,
We will be doing a Solaris 8 to Solaris 10 migration migration, just wanted to know if there are any known / common issues arise from this migration from Shell script point of view.
I tried searching this site but mostly post are related to SA's question and jumpstart, etc. If there's... (4 Replies)
Discussion started by: arvindcgi
4 Replies
2. HP-UX
All,
We are migrating an application from HP-UX B.11.00 to HP-UX B.11.31 and both of them have the same informix version - 7.25se. However the compilers are different on both servers.
HP-UX B.11.00 - has B3913DB C.03.33 HP aC++ Compiler (S800)
HP-UX B.11.31 - has PHSS_40631 1.0 HP C/aC++... (2 Replies)
Discussion started by: helper
2 Replies
3. Programming
Dear Team
I am using DB2 v10 z/os database . Need expert guidance to figure out best way to track table activities ( Ex Delete, Insert,Update )
Scenario
We have a table which is critical and many developer/testing team access on daily basis . We had instance where some deleted... (1 Reply)
Discussion started by: Perlbaby
1 Replies
4. What is on Your Mind?
First a bit of history ....
A number of years ago one of our admins built a number of plugin systems for moderation, including (1) a voting system, (2) a "user feelings" system and (3) a confidential posting system. During this time, I was busy on other projects, not very active in the forums,... (1 Reply)
Discussion started by: Neo
1 Replies
5. What is on Your Mind?
OK.
Like we all do, we learn a lot from tests, test migrations, and so forth.
Today, I started from scratch on test migration 2, armed with a lot more knowledge,
The main differences are as follows:
Installed discourse plugin ruby-bbcode-to-md before starting the install
Modified... (30 Replies)
Discussion started by: Neo
30 Replies
6. What is on Your Mind?
Test Build 4 on New Server, with changes identified in discourse test builds 2 and 3, primarily:
Insuring ruby-bbcode-to-markdown is enabled.
Removing line breaks from ICODE to markdown in migration script.
Added vbpostid to posts in discourse to setup migrating vb "thanks" to discourse... (28 Replies)
Discussion started by: Neo
28 Replies
LEARN ABOUT CENTOS
tspi_tpm_authorizemigrationticket
Tspi_TPM_AuthorizeMigrationTicket(3) TCG Software Stack Developer's Reference Tspi_TPM_AuthorizeMigrationTicket(3) NAME
Tspi_TPM_AuthorizeMigrationTicket- create the migration ticket required for the migration process. SYNOPSIS
#include <tss/platform.h> #include <tss/tcpa_defines.h> #include <tss/tcpa_typedef.h> #include <tss/tcpa_struct.h> #include <tss/tss_typedef.h> #include <tss/tss_structs.h> #include <tss/tspi.h> TSS_RESULT Tspi_TPM_AuthorizeMigrationTicket(TSS_HTPM hTPM, TSS_HKEY hMigrationKey, TSS_MIGRATE_SCHEME migrationScheme, UINT32* pulMigTicketLength, BYTE** prgbMigTicket); DESCRIPTION
Tspi_TPM_AuthorizeMigrationTicket is used by the owner to authorize a target public key for migration. This mean sthat when a system is set up, the owner can decide that all archives should be done on a particular server. Then as keys are created, the user can pick one of these servers for the target of the migration of their keys, if they wish. This provides one of the two authorizations necessary to migrate a key. PARAMETERS
hTPM Handle of the TPM object hMigrationKey Handle of the object representing the migration key. migrationScheme Flag indiating the migration scheme to be used. pulMigTicketLength Recieves the length (in bytes) of the prgbMigTicket parameter. prgbMigTicket Recieves a pointer to thememory block containing the migration ticket blob. RETURN CODES
Tspi_TPM_AuthorizeMigrationTicket returns TSS_SUCCESS on success, otherwise one of the following values are returned: TSS_E_INVALID_HANDLE Either hTPM or hMigrationKey is not a valid handle. TSS_E_INTERNAL_ERROR An error occurred internal to the TSS. CONFORMING TO
Tspi_TPM_AuthorizeMigrationTicket conforms to the Trusted Computing Group Software Specification version 1.1 Golden SEE ALSO
(none). TSS 1.1 2004-05-26 Tspi_TPM_AuthorizeMigrationTicket(3)