You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by David Van Couvering <Da...@Sun.COM> on 2005/07/29 04:14:27 UTC
Migration from 10.0.2.1 to 10.1
I am assuming that there were no interface changes and that migration is
done "in-place" (e.g. you reboot with 10.1 and it upgrades the 10.0.2.1
data files for you). Do I have that right, or is there more to
upgrade/migration?
Thanks,
David
Re: Migration from 10.0.2.1 to 10.1
Posted by Francois Orsini <fr...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for the additional info Dan.
--francois
Re: Migration from 10.0.2.1 to 10.1
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> Francois Orsini wrote:
>
>
>>Found this related JIRA entry as well:
>>http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-377
>>
>>from the 2nd link sent by Dan, it seems like we're doing internal
>>upgrade but it is not automatic. I see that we also allow soft upgrade
>>which is neat...
>>
>>A question I have is when a database is being (non-soft) upgraded, is
>>it put in single-user mode (or read-only) or not? how are concurrent
>>DDL/DML handled against that database? (there might not be any issues
>>- I just haven't seen any restriction(s) mentioned during upgrade as
>>part of the documentation)
I now see you were asking about hard upgrade, not soft upgrade. The hard
upgrade happens during the boot of the database, during that time only
the connection booting the database is allowed in.
Dan.
Re: Migration from 10.0.2.1 to 10.1
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
Øystein Grøvlen wrote:
>>>>>>"DJD" == Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com> writes:
>
>
> DJD> Fully functioning engine in soft upgrade mode, except for the new
> DJD> features that would leave persistent data that would not be understood
> DJD> by an older release. For 10.1 that would be SYNONYMS etc.
>
> DJD> Ie. multi-user, read/write. The intention is that applications can try
> DJD> out the new engine version with no changes and see if it fixes bugs or
> DJD> improves (or degrades) performance.
>
> Is there any performance impact of doing soft-upgrade? That is, does
> it imply data conversion from/to old data format, or is this avoided
> by making the class loading dependent on the data format?
That can only be answered when someone makes changes that modify the a
stored format and uses the old format in soft upgrade mode and the new
format after full upgrade.
The current soft upgrade restrictions just disable SQL features that
would not be handled by the old release, e.g. SYNONYMS would leave
entries in SYSALIASES that might cause problems for 10.0.
Dan.
Re: Migration from 10.0.2.1 to 10.1
Posted by Øystein Grøvlen <Oy...@Sun.COM>.
>>>>> "DJD" == Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com> writes:
DJD> Fully functioning engine in soft upgrade mode, except for the new
DJD> features that would leave persistent data that would not be understood
DJD> by an older release. For 10.1 that would be SYNONYMS etc.
DJD> Ie. multi-user, read/write. The intention is that applications can try
DJD> out the new engine version with no changes and see if it fixes bugs or
DJD> improves (or degrades) performance.
Is there any performance impact of doing soft-upgrade? That is, does
it imply data conversion from/to old data format, or is this avoided
by making the class loading dependent on the data format?
--
Øystein
Re: Migration from 10.0.2.1 to 10.1
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
Francois Orsini wrote:
> Found this related JIRA entry as well:
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-377
>
> from the 2nd link sent by Dan, it seems like we're doing internal
> upgrade but it is not automatic. I see that we also allow soft upgrade
> which is neat...
>
> A question I have is when a database is being (non-soft) upgraded, is
> it put in single-user mode (or read-only) or not? how are concurrent
> DDL/DML handled against that database? (there might not be any issues
> - I just haven't seen any restriction(s) mentioned during upgrade as
> part of the documentation)
Fully functioning engine in soft upgrade mode, except for the new
features that would leave persistent data that would not be understood
by an older release. For 10.1 that would be SYNONYMS etc.
Ie. multi-user, read/write. The intention is that applications can try
out the new engine version with no changes and see if it fixes bugs or
improves (or degrades) performance.
Dan.
Re: Migration from 10.0.2.1 to 10.1
Posted by Francois Orsini <fr...@gmail.com>.
Found this related JIRA entry as well:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-377
from the 2nd link sent by Dan, it seems like we're doing internal
upgrade but it is not automatic. I see that we also allow soft upgrade
which is neat...
A question I have is when a database is being (non-soft) upgraded, is
it put in single-user mode (or read-only) or not? how are concurrent
DDL/DML handled against that database? (there might not be any issues
- I just haven't seen any restriction(s) mentioned during upgrade as
part of the documentation)
Thanks,
--francois
On 7/28/05, David Van Couvering <Da...@sun.com> wrote:
> I am assuming that there were no interface changes and that migration is
> done "in-place" (e.g. you reboot with 10.1 and it upgrades the 10.0.2.1
> data files for you). Do I have that right, or is there more to
> upgrade/migration?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
>
>
Re: Migration from 10.0.2.1 to 10.1
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> David Van Couvering wrote:
>
>>I am assuming that there were no interface changes and that migration is
>>done "in-place" (e.g. you reboot with 10.1 and it upgrades the 10.0.2.1
>>data files for you). Do I have that right, or is there more to
>>upgrade/migration?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>David
>
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/derby/docs/devguide/
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/derby/papers/versionupgrade.html
Sorry, first link should have been
http://incubator.apache.org/derby/docs/devguide/cdevupgrades.html
Dan.
Re: Migration from 10.0.2.1 to 10.1
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
David Van Couvering wrote:
> I am assuming that there were no interface changes and that migration is
> done "in-place" (e.g. you reboot with 10.1 and it upgrades the 10.0.2.1
> data files for you). Do I have that right, or is there more to
> upgrade/migration?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
http://incubator.apache.org/derby/docs/devguide/
http://incubator.apache.org/derby/papers/versionupgrade.html
Dan.