Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add checklist for server migrations #955

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 6, 2024

Conversation

dacook
Copy link
Member

@dacook dacook commented Oct 31, 2024

No description provided.

@dacook dacook self-assigned this Oct 31, 2024
@dacook dacook requested a review from mkllnk October 31, 2024 07:06
Copy link
Member

@mkllnk mkllnk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good idea!

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/server-migration.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
- [ ] `provision.yml`
- [ ] `deploy.yml`
- [ ] `db_integrations` (Permit DB access for n8n, Metabase)
- [ ] Ensure sidekiq is disabled, to avoid creating subscription orders: `systemctl disable sidekiq`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Disable and stop in this case.

But I wonder if we should avoid copying production data before the switchover. 🤔

I guess it's part of the switchover and if problems are identified then we can fix it, go back and start again.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm I guess it's a question of if you want to separate out the testing from the switchover. Ideally, we wouldn't need to: everything just works and we setup, copy db and proceed to migrate and it's all good.

But we need to test and validate that things are working. And often, there will be something not working.
I'd rather identify that before co-ordinating and communicating a downtime, and putting the old site into maintenance mode.
Maybe for some smaller instances, we don't need that added layer of testing, and can accept more downtime while we frantically fix things quickly in-place. That might be a way more efficient use of time. (we ended up doing that for CA anyway!)
But I don't think that would be appropriate in all cases. Particularly for CA, I think it would have been too much to deal with all at once and we may have had to abort.

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/server-migration.md Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/server-migration.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/server-migration.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
I have to admit I'm a bit scared of running db:reset, will need to double-check I'm definitely on the right server..
@dacook
Copy link
Member Author

dacook commented Nov 4, 2024

Thanks for the feedback @mkllnk , I've updated as per comments.

@dacook dacook requested a review from mkllnk November 4, 2024 00:50
Copy link
Contributor

@rioug rioug left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good !

@dacook
Copy link
Member Author

dacook commented Nov 6, 2024

I think this can be merged now, but I will gladly take further feedback.

@dacook dacook merged commit 0b6be98 into openfoodfoundation:master Nov 6, 2024
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants