[RDD] Appliance Versions...

Michael Barnes barnmichael at gmail.com
Tue Jun 28 09:14:45 EDT 2016


Sounds like you're needlessly complicating things to accommodate people who
aren't able to follow well established instructions.
On Jun 28, 2016 7:33 AM, "drew Roberts" <zotzbro at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Cowboy <curt at cwf1.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 22:21:31 -0400
>> drew Roberts <zotzbro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > is there a safe way to have rivendell make this check
>> > and run the rdadmin bits automatically on such an upgrade?
>> >
>> > How can such automation of the database upgrade blow things up
>> > horribly and thus make this a terrible idea?
>>
>>  Submitted for your approval....
>>
>
> ~;-) Right.
>
>>
>>  Take a plant like mine, or any cluster really...
>>
>>  Say, I were to walk in and see that TV production is not currently
>>  being used, so do an upgrade there.
>>  The system auto-detects an obsolete database for itself, and does the
>>  auto-update you suggest. That database lives on a redundant hot-standby
>>  pair of servers serving the whole plant.
>>
>>  What about the other 8 or so radio installations here, that all use
>>  the same database ? OK, some of them could crash horribly, and it
>>  wouldn't be fatal, but the live network feeds could potentially affect
>>  several hundred professional broadcast facilities across the country,
>>  and in our case across continents ( plural ), that pay us good money
>>  for that to not happen.
>>
>>  Better, would be for the upgraded install to throw up a warning
>>  that the configured database is obsolete, so functionality
>>  may be limited, as well as un-squashing bugs, if it'll start at all.
>>
>>  But in the final analysis, Rivendell is a *professional* broadcast
>>  play-out system, by and **for** professionals.
>>  In a professional environment, particularly one of a level that
>>  requires an actual, real system administrator, to actually administer
>>  systems, some things should not be automated, IMHO.
>>
>
> I am more trying to reduce the noise on the lists where time is spent
> helping with the same problems over the years. So, while I agree that some
> things should not be automated, we are running these systems on computers
> and it seems to make some sense to try and automate what can safely be
> automated.
>
> So, perhaps a Standalone/Networked flag/config option could solve that.
>
> Let's say on initial setup it asks if this is a standalone or networked
> setup. If standalone, it further asks if you want auto or manual database
> upgrades and explains once again what happens if you choose manual or auto.
>
> If it is a standalone system and auto db upgrades were chosen, it can
> auto-backup db and then auto-upgrade on first startup after any update that
> changes db version.
>
> Would that break any standalone systems?
>
>
>> --
>> Cowboy
>>
>> http://cowboy.cwf1.com
>>
>> all the best,
>
> drew
> --
> Bahamain Or Nuttin - http://www.bahamianornuttin.com
> <http://www.bahamianornuttin.com/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rivendell-dev mailing list
> Rivendell-dev at lists.rivendellaudio.org
> http://caspian.paravelsystems.com/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://caspian.paravelsystems.com/pipermail/rivendell-dev/attachments/20160628/9b3c18ff/attachment.html>


More information about the Rivendell-dev mailing list