On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 09:37:50 -0600 Tim Flink <tflink@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 17:16:27 +0200 > Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 08:47:43AM -0600, Tim Flink wrote: > > > We had intended to do this before freeze but managed to miss it. > > > One of the upcoming features for taskotron that we've deployed to > > > dev and want to deploy to staging is execdb - task execution > > > tracking for Taskotron. > > > > > > This requires adding a database to db-qa01.qa which is the db host > > > for the production Taskotron instance but no other changes to > > > production or frozen systems. > > > > So you want a stg application to run against a db located on a > > production environment? > > That's how it's been setup since we first deployed Taskotron - all the > dev, stg and prod dbs are on the same host. Right. We can split them out later, but I didn't want 3 more instances running so super tiny db's would be seperate. > > Wouldn't it be more logical to have a db-qa01.qa.stg or so? > > I can see the argument for doing that but I'm not sure that separating > them out would provide enough benefit to justify the overhead of (an) > additional database host(s) since the Taskotron bits don't really hit > the db very hard. I'm not against the idea of having separate db > servers for prod and dev/stg but I'd rather not muck around with that > during freeze. Right. I didn't think these very small databases justified new sperate hosts. I'm +1 to the request for now. kevin
Attachment:
pgpuMg5N0jKF5.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
