I need to upgrade my current version of DNN this week. I am currently using 2.1.1. I don't want to do everything twice, so, I have several questions.
Is there an upgrade tool or some scripts somewhere that will help me to do an upgrade.
Am I better off installing 4.9 or 5.0. It is production.
If I go with 4.9, will I be able to upgrade to 5.0 when it releases?
I personally strongly disagree with ALassek, you can upgrade DotNetNuke, you just have to follow the steps listed and as long as you do that it isn't a big deal at all, but there are a few key things to keep in mind as you set down the road to do your migration.
DO NOT USE 5.0 in production at this time. 5.0 is only in RC2 stage at this time and using it in production is NOT recommended and an upgrade path from RC2 -> Final might not be possible!
If you plan on trying to upgrade from 2.1.1 go from it to the most current version of 2, then go to 3, then go to 3.3.7, then go to 4.4.1, then to 4.6.2, then to 4.9.0. Typically you are able to make it, but some sites are not.
Some modules though will need to be updated to work with DNN 4.x, depending on the numbers and vendors this can be an easy process or can involve needing to find other providers for the specific functionality at hand.
As for the potential to upgrade to 5.0 from 4.9, yes, that will be 100% supported once 5.0 is in a production ready state.
It's been my experience that DotNetNuke has a tendancy to release breaking changes without documenting them (or documenting much of anything, for that matter). Without knowing exactly what you have installed in it, it's impossible to say exactly how screwed you are. But I can guarantee you the transition will likely not be easy, especially if you have a lot of modules installed.
Between 2.1.1 => 4.9, so much has changed that I can't imagine there is any automated way to upgrade. You're better off starting from scratch and seeing what still works. Most likely you will need to find newer versions of any modules you're using, or replacements for those that aren't being kept current.
To be honest, I don't know. But I see that the DNN download page very strongly states that the 5.0 release-candidates are "NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PRODUCTION USE".
There was a huge amount of breaking changes between 2x and 3x which will cause pretty much any custom modules you have to have to be upgraded or replaced. Other than that Mitchel is the DNN man and I would defer to him.
Related
I am trying to setup solr in my project, want to know which is the most stable and tested version of solr available. I want to use mapr filesystem.
Basically, there are two rules for all Solr releases:
They all have a large number of tests to pass before release.
Still, there's some issue with every .0 release, so it's wise to choose the bugfixed .1 even later releases.
Bonus: This applies to every type of file system you want Solr to run on.
Then there is a trade-off between having the latest features and having it around in field use for longer time. Of course, version 3.6 was thoroughly tested in the field, because it's been around for many years. But it's so outdated you should not choose it. The same applies for the 4.x branch.
On the other end, there's the 6.x branch which has many cool new features but is relatively young. So personally, I recommend you to go with the latest release of the 5.x branch. While the 5.0 release had many new features introduced, the work up to the latest released version 5.5.4 had many fixes applied and still gets backports for things that are fixed in the 6.x branch.
I’ve inherited a project that uses a Solr 3.6.0 deployment. (Several
masters and several slaves – I think there are 6 Solr instances in total.)
I’ve been tasked with investigating if upgrading our 3.6.0 deployment will improve performance – there’s a lot of data and things are getting slow, apparently.
I’ve read Apache docs that from 3.6.x to 4.x there were improvements in scalability and performance.
I see that from 4.x to 5.x that Solr is now a standable server and no longer just a WAR running on Tomcat.
ISSUES:
A. Is it worth upgrading to 4.x or 5.x? Will I see a big improvement in performance?
B. Should I got to 4.x or 5.x? Will 4.x be an easier upgrade path since it's just a new WAR file?
C. In a nutshell ... what will the upgrade path look like, what kind of steps am I in for, and how can I avoid trouble?
Any help is GREATLY appreciated!!
It depends.
If stuff runs fine today and you don't need the extra performance or functionality - there is no good reason to touch it. You're so far behind that upgrading will be a large thing anyway. If you need the performance or the functionality, yes. It's worth it. You'll see an increase in performance and you can use a more recent Java version (current trunk of Lucene requires Java8).
If you can't reindex easily, you'll have to go through 4.x to get to 5.x anyway, since the current version of 5.x might not be able to read your current index format. If you can reindex easily, go directly to 5.x. You'll have to deal with the change in how Solr is being run at some time, better do it now when you're doing the breaking upgrade anyways.
Have a backup, replicate the current environment to a experimental server and try the update there. If you can easily reindex, set up 5.x and index to it and see if you can run the application straight from that backend instead (in development, not production). If it works (and you can reindex easily), create a Solr 5.x instance to run in parallel to your current installation, reindex to that and switch over production after confirming that it works in dev.
If you can't reindex, create a development clone of the current core and try to find the upgrade path that is able to upgrade the index files as you're going along. You're going to have to read a bit of documentation and try out different versions to get a proper migration of the index file format going.
I've been trying to upgrade DNN version 4.09.05 to 5.0.0. and higher but I always encounter errors in upgrading. Each version presents different errors. I really need help.
Due to the vagueness of your posting, we aren't going to be able to help you much except point you to the Wiki for upgrade scenarios
http://www.dotnetnuke.com/Resources/Wiki/Page/Upgrading-DotNetNuke.aspx
First things first, you should just attempt to upgrade from 4.9.5 to the latest 6.1.1 release, see if that works (after backing everything up)
I'm nearling completion of my first CakePHP-driven website and just saw they're already working on CakePHP 2.0 (not the stable release yet).
My questions:
Is it incredibly time consuming to move to a new version of CakePHP (when it becomes the "stable" release that is)? I know they have migration guides, but - I've never used a framework before, so I've never had to migrate anything.
Do you migrate your code for existing projects, or leave it as is and use the new stable version for future projects only?
Where can I find what version of CakePHP I currently have installed? I've looked at the LICENCE and VERSION files, but cannot find the installed/current version listed in them.
These seem like simple questions, but I greatly appreciate any thoughts/advice - searching this on Google just brings up how-to-migrate pages, not pros/cons...etc.
I've migrated a few sites from CakePHP 1.2 to 1.3. In my experience, it takes 2-3 hours on sites that have 5-10 controllers and no custom plugins, etc. I find I typically only have to change the syntax on a handful of function calls, and when I figure out which ones, it is just a matter of doing a find / replace across the site. Of course it could be more of an issue going from 1.3 to 2.0, but I don't get the sense that it will be an especially drastic API change.
UPDATE: I'm now in the process of migrating to CakePHP 2.0 beta, and thought I should update this, as I'm finding the updates are more extensive and far-reaching than I had assumed when I wrote this. Migration guide here: https://github.com/cakephp/docs/blob/master/en/appendices/2-0-migration-guide.rst
ANOTHER UPDATE: Since people seem to be finding this useful, I just thought I'd point out that Cake now helpfully provides an upgrade shell that does some of the work for you. Note that although the documentation says it will do "most" of the work, I have found there are still quite a few function calls, etc. that will need to be updated manually (see migration guide).
http://book2.cakephp.org/en/console-and-shells/upgrade-shell.html
As dhofstet said, it will all depend on the size and complexity of your site.
Whether you upgrade at all is usually a judgment call, but sometimes you have to (e.g. Cake 1.2 has some code that will break if your host upgrades to PHP 5.3). You certainly wouldn't have the kind of security issues that an old WordPress, Drupal, etc install would have. I have seen some noticeable speed increases with Cake upgrades, so depending on the situation it could be worth the trouble just for that (Cake 2.0 finally drops PHP 4 suppport). Look at the release notes and see if there are things that appeal to you in the new version.
To see your version, in the cake/VERSION.txt file, look at the very last line. It's easy to miss, but it should just be a number, e.g. 1.3.8.
This question is difficult to answer as it depends on the size and complexity of your project(s). The "big" releases (from 1.1 -> 1.2, 1.2 -> 1.3, 1.3 -> 2.0) usually break stuff and so you have to budget some migration work. The migration between "smaller" releases (for example from 1.3.9 to 1.3.10), on the other hand, is usually easy, often it just means to replace the cake folder. In both cases it is useful to have tests.
I migrate the projects which are actively maintained.
You can find the CakePHP version in cake/config/config.php
I'm migrating an app 1.3»2.0rc1 right now and I got no big trouble.
I had to change names of folder/files, eg. app_controller.php » Controller/AppController.php
Follow the migration link (tmp link) http://book2.cakephp.org/en/appendices/2-0-migration-guide.html
plugins/components/.. from various source won't work (at minus, for point 1)
To update the code (which in my case wasn't needed as the app worked well) I've shell-baked a dummy table and looked at differences in code.. It's a good starting point
Authentication/Authorization changed in some config, but requires few changes.
Trees still working
Acl don't. But I'm quite sure it's my fault.
For now it's all, good work!
Since I've not done this before I am not sure if the way I am planning to do this is okay or is there a better way. Like using Windows Installer or Install Shield or Windows Installer XML (WiX) toolset. Any help would be great, as I have no clue.
We have a product and we ship new version every few months. So far we've only been rolling out complete versions i.e. Either Version 1.0, or Version 1.5, but no upgrade from 1.0 to 1.2 to 1.3 to .... you get the picture, right! So any customer that get version 1.0 cannot upgrade to version 1.2 or 1.3 or even the latest. They'll have to uninstall old version and install the latest version. This is not right, but thats what we could do until now. But we'd like to change it.
My plan is to have a install file with (Sql Scripts) for each upgrade path. Check the table in database that stores the version info and depending on it run different script to upgrade database.
My concern is that this method may not be scalable, once we have more than 5 or 6 different versions.
If you could point to any articles or books on this topic, that would help a lot too.
Also, could we use Windows Installer or Install Shield for this?
thanks,
_UB
We've been using DBGhost for a year or so now to keep our database under source control along with our codebase, and it makes this kind of thing dead easy. It's not just well thought through, but they've been using it to roll out their own code for years, so it's dead solid.
Your problem is a pretty common one, and I've had to deal with this kind of problem at my last job. There is another tool aside from the RedGate tool that may help you do what you need to do. It's a tool called DB Ghost. They explicitly address the versioning problem, and have a packager as well. I would suggest doing a trial of the DB Ghost product because they have some interesting claims concerning multiple version upgrades. This was taken from their FAQ (http://www.innovartis.co.uk/faqs/faqs.aspx):
Q: Our problem is going to be managing
data structure changes during
upgrades. Our product line is
Shrink-Wrapped, or downloadable from
the website. So when a user downloads
an upgrade, they can be upgrading from
a very recent version, with few
database structure changes, or the
upgrade may be from a very old version
with a multitude of structural
changes. One upgrade needs to manage
it all. The user would be offsite, so
we can't hold their hand. We have
users in Greece, Australia, Malaysia,
Norway, etc. How would DB Ghost, if at
all, handle updates in remote
locations?
A: The DB Ghost Packager Plus product was
design to specifically address this
issue as it can dynamically handle the
required updates to a target database
seamlessly.
I'm just mentioning this because our company is trying to do something similar and I was doing research on this tool.
Thanks,
Eric
Do you insist on doing it yourself, or could you see yourself committing and investing in a tool?
I really like the idea of Red-Gate's SQL Packager, which will "diff" your two database versions, and then create a SQL script, a C# project, or a stand-alone executable to upgrade from version 1 to version 2.
Not 100% how you'd be able to upgrade from 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 all to 2.0 - check out their website and see if they offer something for that scenario!
Otherwise, I guess it'll get quite thorny and messy......
Marc
In the Rails world they are using a tool/method called Migrations.
Basically is boils down to creating a small sql script to upgrade and downgrade each little change to the database.
When you are testing the application you migrate your database to the version you want and on deployment the application can check what version it needs and migrate to that version.
There are free migration toolkits for most popular languages, they might be part of some MVC framework though.
A nice side effect of migrations is that you have database source code that is easily stored in you source control repository.