I am in the process of setting up SQ for a large organization. I plan to have two separate systems one for update testing and rule development. The second would be the production system where real work occurs. I will be using SQL 2014 typically when I do that I use a SQL always On group to sync to a DR server in another datacenter. My question is with a SonarQube instance does it make sense to DR the application to that level. If my organization can wait for a period of time to stand up a new server in a DR event would that be possible with a proper backup of the DB? Further if there were no backups of the DB what would be lost with a fresh new SonarQube server besides setup/config time? Is there historical value of code scans that would be lost or would the next scan of the code base have us right back to where we were in terms of critical issues found etc.?
Thanks for your replies.
All the data is stored in the database so using DR on the database is a good idea. You should make backup of the database and restoring the database is also a good solution (note that you should do backup of installed plugins).
If you loose the database, you will also loose all the configuration (quality profiles, credentials, etc.) and the history of the analyzed projects.
So to restore a SonarQube instance, you have to :
Restore the database
Restore SonarQube or install the same version
Restore the plugins (${SONAR_HOME}/extensions/plugins)
During the first start, the ES files (${SONAR_HOME}/data/es) will be regenerated and you're instance will then be up and running.
If you have commercial plugins or if you are working with large SonarQube instance you may contact the sales team to have support on this setup.
Disclaimer : I'm working at SonarSource
Related
I am new to OBIEE tool , hence kindly bear with me if my query is basic in nature.
I have 2 RPD files, a.rpd and b.rpd. I need to switch between these 2 RPDs on same server and through same OBIEE tool.
Do I need to deploy both RPD on server to switch between these two through same OBIEE tool?
As per my own attempt, I can open both RPD file through Administration (obiee tool) : File --> Open-->Offline and without any deployment.
Is it mandatory to deploy both RPD at server to open it on line?
I guess I need to define 2 different ODBC system data sources for my repositories after deployment.
Thanks,
I got the answer to my queries through my own research, hence sharing in below so that others can be benefitted :
1) OBIEE designed to work with a single repository.
OBIEE has a single repository at any point in time. You can deploy A.RPD, use it and after a bit deploy B.RPD and use it. But it's either A or B and you will not have both on the server.
2) You can merge A and B together (the Admin tool allows you to do that and you obviously need unique names inside both or they will override things) if you want to have A+B deployed.
it's possible to safely merge 2 RPD which would have different business models and different subject areas and different physical sources. In case of conflicts you must solve it: keep A or replace it with B. It's like when you have to manage conflicts in versioning control systems etc.
3) However you can open both files locally, "offline" mode , for that all you need is the file itself.
4) It's also safer to work offline as you can do the whole work and then verify the RPD and only once you did everything you upload. If you work online and start doing changes but don't finish your work, people will be using an OBIEE system with a RPD half done. This could lead to errors. Also working online has some constraints because of how check in and out works.
Thanks,
I am looking a this Amazon page - https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/serverless/ and it has this quote:
You pay on a per-second basis for the database capacity you use when
the database is active, and migrate between standard and serverless
configurations with a few clicks in the AWS Management Console.
I have a few normal Aurora clusters and want to switch them to serverless. I have looked and looked and cannot find the "migrate with a few clicks" bit in the Amazon user interface. I made a new serverless cluster just fine and so I could do a stop, backup, and restore with a short outage - but If I can do this without an outage - that would be far superior.
So where are these "few clicks" - or perhaps you will tell me the "few clicks" means stop, backup, and restore. Either way I think a lot of folks could benefit from knowing what "few clicks" make this happen.
As a comment on #drchuck's approach - We've learned this the hard way that AWS Database Migration Service does a bad job at creating the schema in the target database. However - there's a simple workaround:
1) Run mysqldump --no-data to get the exact schema from the source database.
2) Execute the dump'd schema on the target database.
3) Within your DMS task, under target table preparation mode, choose "Truncate" instead of "Drop tables on target". (https://docs.aws.amazon.com/dms/latest/userguide/CHAP_Tasks.Creating.html)
With this in place, DMS doesn't create the schema on the target side, and things work pretty well (all existing data is loaded, and then ongoing changes are sync'd in near-real-time).
We've used this approach for minimal downtime cutovers a few times.
It took more than a while to figure out those few clicks.
I'm here initially as I too could not find them and yes I saw the exact quote on the AWS page you indicated saying that yes you could.
First you take a snapshot and then you restore it. In the process of restoring it you can select a serverless instance. (At least under SOME conditions. I do not think that a 5.7.12 (just confirmed actually) can be restored to a serverless configuration).
I suspect that 5.7.12 will happen in due time.
Right now the magic bullet is to start with a 5.6.10a version, take a snapshot and then restore that to a serveless instance.
For what it's worth after the long time:
Apparently Amazon Aurora Serverless is only compatible with MySQL 5.6 - this explains why 5.7 snapshots cannot be recovered.
So the two options are
downgrading the MySQL version to 5.6 first or
dumping and importing the data (after I read the other answers, I'd go for the second option).
Further reading:
https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/serverless/?nc1=h_ls#How_to_Get_Started
When I did not get an answer in a few days, I did the conversion two ways with different results so I figured I would share my results here. I would still love to hear a better approach. (1) When I did the conversion using mysqldump and restore, with a short outage things were fine. (2) When I used AWS Database Migration Service it went pretty badly.
First, you have to get the binary log format as "ROW" and retention to 24 hours. That necessitated server restarts on my old clusters. Then when the data migration worked, I lost all my auto increments, then NULLness in my columns, the UNIQUE clauses and foreign keys in the new tables. Literally the only thing that migrated correctly was that the actual data and PRIMARY KEY indications. Also, I would recommend migrating one database at a time (i.e. schema) and don't try to migrate the mysql internal schemas. I said "migrate everything" and the migration tool tried to migrate the MySQL stuff - sheesh.
The one thing the AWS Database Migration Service did that was really cool was the migrate and monitor (made possible by the binary logging on the rows). You could watch it moving rows.
Just for the record, AWS amended the quoted documentation in mid-2022 by changing 'few clicks' to 'few steps'.🤣
You pay on a per-second basis for the database capacity that you use
when the database is active, and migrate between standard and
serverless configurations with a few steps in the Amazon Relational
Database Service (Amazon RDS) console.
Currently the documentation states that there are two (multi-step) methods that can be used to migrate from provisioned to serverless, and serverless to provisioned:
Snapshot restore.
Logical backup and restore.
Details here.
We are having separate databases for each tenant which is creating a lot of downtime when we are deploying changes on cloud. The steps(in brief) what we follow whenever we have to deploy the changes on cloud are:
Put down the client site.
Take a snapshot of the current RDS instance(in case anything goes south).
Run the migration scripts(Changes) on each tenant database on RDS instance.
If everything goes well, then we make the client site live again.
Now the problem is, we are having around 250 tenants as of now and the 3rd step which is running the update script is taking too much time which in turn increases the downtime. Any suggestions on how to improve this process or if we are suppose to do it in some other way. There is a clear lack of enterprise level expertise here on our end, so any help will be appreciated. Thanks!
Without knowing anything about your application, here are some things to think about:
If your application would still have some value when running in a 'read-only' mode, you could limit the actual downtime by doing the following.
Make sure all of your RDS databases have a read-replica.
Set your application into 'read-only' mode (i.e. thru some application code).
Let your read replica catchup with your master
promote your read-replica to a stand-alone DB.
Run your updates against this copy of the database.
redirect your application to the new master.
create a new read replica from this new master
delete/archive your old database.
You still have to do all the work, and it still takes a while to run, but the actual downtime for the user should be minimal.
At work we use Oracle (12c client) to store most of our data and I use SQL Developer to connect to the database environments.
Issue:
We have issues where tables are being modified for one reason or another (too lazy to create a new table so they add new columns and change data types or lengths). This in return will break the table for others who actually utilize it for its real purpose.
Update:
We have DEV, TST, UAT, and PRD environments. We test and have scripts approved before we promote to PRD. The problem resides in DEV when we want to go back to an existing table to make an change, but that table had already been modified for different reasons.
Question 1:
Is the versioning just for stored procedures or is it possible to track changes to table structures, functions, triggers, sequences, synonyms, etc.?
As Bob Jarvis indicates you need way more than a solution to your question. You need policies and practices enforced for all developers. Some ideas from places I have worked:
every developer has a VM machine with a copy of the database installed. They can do whatever they like on it but must supply scripts to move their changes to production. These scripts are applied on a test instance and again on a QA instance before going to production.
subversion works on all OS and tortoise works well on windows. Committing scripts to a repository works well and this is integrated with SQL developer and can be done with Toad.
you have a permissions issue. Too many people have the privileges to alter tables. Remove these permissions and centralize on one or two people. Changes are funnelled through them as scripts and oversight can be applied there. Developers can have their own schema to test or a VM with a copy for development.
run this script to see who can alter tables
select * from DBA_TAB_PRIVS
WHERE PRIVILEGE = 'ALTER'
The key is a separation of concerns. Developers should have access to a schema where they can do what they need. The company needs to know who did what, when and where.
If you have more than one developer working on multiple changes to a dev environment then you need coordination and communication as well as source control. A weekly meeting to discuss overlap areas or a heads up chat message are just some ways to work together.
The approach I think works best, is to have a DEV database where all the developers manage their own set of schemas.
Scripted builds are provided with test data loads to allow any developer to create his own working schema. He then works on there, tests his changes and then commits his changes via scripts to the source control. DEV databases do not need to be large, just need enough test cases to allow for unit tests.
Script all the changes so that they can be checked into a version control system, and merged with other changes. The goal is to have a system where devA checks in changeA, and then when merged with the main trunk, devB gets changeA as he builds his schemaA.
This approach requires care if the main project schema employs PUBLIC synonyms. You will need to consider this as you go forward.
I would also advise with each change checked in an accompanying back out script should be checked in.
The advantage of this approach is that devs can manage their own schemas. With a scripted approach they dont all need to have DBA knowledge, and don't need to manage the database either. having all these on one database makes it easier to manage and control resources.
I've used this approach in teams with 50+ developers and it has worked very well.
This approach also paves the way for having devs checking scripts in and having a automatically creating a deployment package.
There is so much that can be done to make the development-test-deploy-backout cycle easier to manage.
We currently have two SonarQube servers (v4.5.1) running on two separate Windows 2012 servers each with its own MS SQL database server. One is our Development server and the other is our production server. The idea being that we test out all rule changes on the development server first, once we are happy that they are correct we port them to the Production server.
When we first setup the two servers we simply took a backup of the Development server database and restored it on the Production server. At this point both systems were in sync.
We have recently made some modifications to the Development rules set, however when we tried the same approach to move these to the production server it did not work.
The production box seemed to remember the previous rule set. There seems to be a cache of the previous rules that we can't work out how to clear.
Before restarting SonarQube with the new DB in place we deleted the temp folder as that appears to keep a cached H2 database, but that did not solve the issue. We also tried starting it up and using the /setup url but this did not appear to work either.
Is there a way to completely reset the SonarQube server prior to restoring the database so that it has no knowledge of the previous rule set?
Alternatively is there a better way to export and re-import the entire rule set between two servers?
We looked at exporting the rule profile, but this did not appear to contain the full detail of the rules.
Thanks
Pete
For the moment, this is not possible to fully synchronize rules and quality profiles between 2 servers because of SONAR-5366. You can watch and vote for this ticket.
Concerning the cache that you seem to have, this is probably the E/S indexes which are located in <install_dir>/data/es folder. What you can do is:
stop you server
fully delete the <install_dir>/data folder
restart the server: your rules should be in sync with the DB