> On 11 Feb 2015, at 00:23, Eli Stevens (Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey all, > > I haven't seen any discussion of this topic for a while now. I had > asked about it on IRC a while back, and didn't get an indication of > any firm plans. > > What's the story for upgrading 1.6 DBs to 2.0? > > We have a bunch of customer systems that are behind their corp > firewalls that we're going to need to upgrade headlessly via > unattended script, and it would be nice to know what it's going to > take to get those moved over to 2.0. I'm nervous about > localhost-to-localhost replication, because getting the port > conflicts, replication hiccups, disk space exhaustion issues, etc. all > sorted out and working cleanly seems daunting.
We don’t have a good story for this yet. The database file format didn’t change between 1.x and 2.0, so in-place upgrades could be possible. There is some work planned to make local-node databases available in a cluster (even if it is just a cluster of 1) to Fauxton (cc Robert K), that should then also be available via the HTTP API. Best Jan --
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
