While I appreciate that this might be what the design behavior is, this is not how it is described in your ui.
Specifically, when I do a "Sync to All" on an instance, the next screen has the following text: " If you leave the role name intact, instances on all your farms will be replaced." This implies that if I change the name of a role then instance on all farms will *not* be replaced. I'm not seeing how else to interpret this. Maybe the bug is just that the explained behavior is not accurate. I am fine making updates the way you describe below, and have in the past, but this is very inconvenient. If it could work as advertised above it'd be great. I could make a new farm using the same roles as a template, customize the roles and sync to all with a renamed role only with in my new role. On Apr 15, 12:05 pm, Arie Fishler <[email protected]> wrote: > this is not a bug. this is the defined behavior. I think you are > misinterpreting something you might have read. > > When you "sync to all" it is propagated to ALL farms that had the role you > synchronized. > > The way to achieve what you describe is to create a role from an instance > (from the main menu - there is such an option). This will create a role > based on the state of an existing instance and will not restart any other > servers based on that. > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 8:09 PM, kevbaker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello Scalr support, > > > We experienced some very strange behavior last night when using the > > sync to all feature. > > > This is what happened: > > - We have two farms 925 and 1606 > > - We have two custom roles app1, www1 > > - Both farms use these roles > > - We made some configuration changes to app1/www1 in farm 1606 > > - We "synced to all" app1 and www1 roles from farm 1606 to app2 and > > www2 in farm 1606, they were renamed > > - Based on the fact that they were renamed we expected them to only be > > updated in the 1606 farm > > - instead the following happened: > > - everything worked as expected in farm 1606 > > - app2 and www2 were both deployed to the other farm 925? > > - app1 and www1 were both still in farm 925, not terminated? > > - farm 925 front end was switched to www2? > > - www2 was updated with all app1 and app2 application servers > > > Because of the above, all incoming traffic to www2 role was round > > robining to both kinds of app servers. Some worked properly since they > > were routed to app1 others failed since the updates to the role for > > app2 were not valid for the 925 farm. > > > The expected behavior based on scalr documentation is that if I rename > > a role before syncing to all, that only the roles in that farm would > > be updated. Instead all the farms with that role were updated and the > > previous roles in other farms were not terminated. > > > For more detail here are the actual names of the roles: > > app1 = app-beachfront > > app2 = smi-beachfront-app-stress > > www1 = www-juice > > www2 = smi-beachfront-www-stress > > > This is a pretty big deal. We were able to back out of it okay, with > > some fixes and DNS changes... but in a production environment this > > would have cause a couple hours of down time ;( > > > Can someone at scalr please investigate, explain what happened and > > hopefully fix the bug? Let me know if you have any questions, I'd be > > happy to help out in any way. > > > Thanks --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "scalr-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/scalr-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
