Ang, Trish | 2 Sep 2010 21:03
Picon

Re: [PloneDavis-Discuss] Rescuing an old site

Hi Alex!

We have a Plone 2.5 server running on OpenBSD. Not sure if it'll be of any
help to you, but if you want we can try importing a copy of your .zexp.
Steve's right though ‹ all the product versions need to be correct for the
import to work.

Here's the info from our 2.5 box:
Plone 2.5.5, 
 CMF-1.6.4, 
 Zope (Zope 2.9.8-final, python 2.4.4, openbsd4),
 Five 1.4.4, 
 Python 2.4.4 (#1, Aug 17 2007, 08:00:48) [GCC 3.3.5 (propolice)],
  PIL 1.1.5  

Tyler & I have been told repeatedly that .zexp isn't a safe or reliable
means for backing up websites, and I definitely see that from instances such
as this one. However, we do still use it for transferring websites between
servers, i.e. from our development box to our production box. It works for
us because we have a number of servers all built off the same buildout.cfg.

It was suggested during the sprint that all websites should have their own
data.fs, and that moving websites should be done via those data.fs files. We
haven't been able to do this since we have so many websites to deal with and
not nearly enough space, but I was wondering how you all handle this? Does
anyone have Zope instances with multiple data.fs files and if yeah, what are
your experiences with it?

- trish

(Continue reading)

Steve McMahon | 3 Sep 2010 18:48
Gravatar

Re: [PloneDavis-Discuss] Rescuing an old site

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Ang, Trish <pgang-ZnEz5tD0I2KVc3sceRu5cw@public.gmane.org> wrote:

...
It was suggested during the sprint that all websites should have their own
data.fs, and that moving websites should be done via those data.fs files. We
haven't been able to do this since we have so many websites to deal with and
not nearly enough space, but I was wondering how you all handle this? Does
anyone have Zope instances with multiple data.fs files and if yeah, what are
your experiences with it?
...

For those in the dark, this is done by "mounting" multiple data.fs databases at different points in the object hierarchy.

It's a hassle to set up, and may result in a much larger memory footprint since the database object caches for little-used sites will no longer be shared.

But .. it works and can be a life-saver at migration time. I tend to do it with bigger/active sites, while still packing a fairly large number of smaller, less-active sites into a single db.
_______________________________________________
ZUGOD-Discuss mailing list
ZUGOD-Discuss@...
http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/zugod-discuss

Gmane