Pages: [1] :: one page |
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Kitchie
Gallente Kitchie's Logistics and Marketing Corp
|
Posted - 2009.05.01 18:15:00 -
[1]
Due to popular demand, a dedicated thread.
The Dynasty Banking website will be down for approximately 48 hours starting May 1. We are moving our forums and website over to a new server. Deposits and interest payments will still proceed as usual just during this time frame all functionality of the website will not be available
Dynasty Banking - DBANK |

Brynden Blackfish
|
Posted - 2009.05.02 00:20:00 -
[2]
Congrats on the new server.
A couple of suggestions for next time:
- Copy files first - Create test database on new server and import real data from db backup - Perform tests on the new machine to confirm everything is up and running (use a hosts file if dns is a concern for testing) - Wipe the test db, create a new db for production - Halt processes on the old server - Export db on old server, import on new server - Point db config on old server to use database on new server (make sure config allows access from this remote host) - Update DNS settings on domain - Start up web services again on both servers (however, if you have cron-like services which interact with the db, only enable them on the new server so there is no conflict)
This should provide a more seamless transfer, with only a few minutes of downtime instead of a couple of days. Anyone who is still resolving the domain at the old server will still have access to the site and any changes made will be against the database on the new server, so nothing is lost.
The only thing that might be lost in the 12-24 hours it takes for DNS to fully propagate (usually much quicker now, sometimes as low as a few minutes depending on the ISP) is any new user images or other file storage data that is uploaded, if a third party storage service (such as Amazon S3) isn't used. These generally won't break the functionality of the site because most relevant data is stored in a database. The worst that is typically seen is a broken user avatar until the files are transferred over later, but you should consider whether you have other hard user data that isn't stored in the db to be certain of no ill effect.
|

Manalapan
Dynasty Banking
|
Posted - 2009.05.02 06:46:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Brynden Blackfish Congrats on the new server.
A couple of suggestions for next time:
- Copy files first - Create test database on new server and import real data from db backup - Perform tests on the new machine to confirm everything is up and running (use a hosts file if dns is a concern for testing) - Wipe the test db, create a new db for production - Halt processes on the old server - Export db on old server, import on new server - Point db config on old server to use database on new server (make sure config allows access from this remote host) - Update DNS settings on domain - Start up web services again on both servers (however, if you have cron-like services which interact with the db, only enable them on the new server so there is no conflict)
This should provide a more seamless transfer, with only a few minutes of downtime instead of a couple of days. Anyone who is still resolving the domain at the old server will still have access to the site and any changes made will be against the database on the new server, so nothing is lost.
The only thing that might be lost in the 12-24 hours it takes for DNS to fully propagate (usually much quicker now, sometimes as low as a few minutes depending on the ISP) is any new user images or other file storage data that is uploaded, if a third party storage service (such as Amazon S3) isn't used. These generally won't break the functionality of the site because most relevant data is stored in a database. The worst that is typically seen is a broken user avatar until the files are transferred over later, but you should consider whether you have other hard user data that isn't stored in the db to be certain of no ill effect.
Thank you for the information. Really the only reason we didn't do something along these lines is that I do not want to risk any potential security issues by having the db remote accessible. The downtime is more favorable than any risk.
Dynasty Banking |

CEO Supernova
|
Posted - 2009.05.02 09:36:00 -
[4]
You should probably announce this earlier than the day of the downtime as well. ;)
|

Chaos Dreams
|
Posted - 2009.05.02 10:53:00 -
[5]
Originally by: CEO Supernova You should probably announce this earlier than the day of the downtime as well. ;)
It kind of was. It was in their most recent status report, and they posted a link to it here a few days ago. They just didn't make a dedicated thread until now.
|

Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.05.02 15:52:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Brynden Blackfish Congrats on the new server.
A couple of suggestions for next time:
- Copy files first - Create test database on new server and import real data from db backup - Perform tests on the new machine to confirm everything is up and running (use a hosts file if dns is a concern for testing) - Wipe the test db, create a new db for production - Halt processes on the old server - Export db on old server, import on new server - Point db config on old server to use database on new server (make sure config allows access from this remote host) - Update DNS settings on domain - Start up web services again on both servers (however, if you have cron-like services which interact with the db, only enable them on the new server so there is no conflict)
This should provide a more seamless transfer, with only a few minutes of downtime instead of a couple of days. Anyone who is still resolving the domain at the old server will still have access to the site and any changes made will be against the database on the new server, so nothing is lost.
The only thing that might be lost in the 12-24 hours it takes for DNS to fully propagate (usually much quicker now, sometimes as low as a few minutes depending on the ISP) is any new user images or other file storage data that is uploaded, if a third party storage service (such as Amazon S3) isn't used. These generally won't break the functionality of the site because most relevant data is stored in a database. The worst that is typically seen is a broken user avatar until the files are transferred over later, but you should consider whether you have other hard user data that isn't stored in the db to be certain of no ill effect.
When dealing with anything like customer accounts security best practices have you actually taking down the database in advance and not having two instances running at any one single time.
Things that you mention can mitigate down obviously, but its a big red flag no no to have two of them running...ever. |

Brynden Blackfish
|
Posted - 2009.05.02 16:25:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Brynden Blackfish on 02/05/2009 16:25:36
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
When dealing with anything like customer accounts security best practices have you actually taking down the database in advance and not having two instances running at any one single time.
Things that you mention can mitigate down obviously, but its a big red flag no no to have two of them running...ever.
I was speaking of having two webservers running, not two databases, if you go back and read more carefully. This configuration is run all the time.
The security concern is in allowing access to the database from the remote web server, which is valid if you don't have the permissions to retrict by a specific IP, or if the 'old' server is not secure or is in a shared environment.
|

Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.05.02 21:42:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Brynden Blackfish
I was speaking of having two webservers running, not two databases, if you go back and read more carefully. This configuration is run all the time.
The security concern is in allowing access to the database from the remote web server, which is valid if you don't have the permissions to retrict by a specific IP, or if the 'old' server is not secure or is in a shared environment.
That you did, I misread.. my bad |

digdugdiggy
|
Posted - 2009.05.03 00:48:00 -
[9]
Did anyone else notice that the interest rates dropped? They went from 3%/4% (Standard/limited) to 2%/3%.
I am angered by this sudden drop of rates without announcement, and I will probably close my dbank account.
|

Estel Arador
Minmatar Estel Arador Corp Services
|
Posted - 2009.05.03 01:04:00 -
[10]
Originally by: digdugdiggy Did anyone else notice that the interest rates dropped? They went from 3%/4% (Standard/limited) to 2%/3%.
I am angered by this sudden drop of rates without announcement, and I will probably close my dbank account.
I think it was mentioned in the March report.
FREE! jumpclone service - over 200 locations! |

Salpad
Caldari Carebears with Attitude
|
Posted - 2009.05.03 04:02:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Estel Arador
I think it was mentioned in the March report.
Yes, it was mentioned in the recently released report.
Also note that CDs created before the change will retain their old interest rates.
-- Salpad |
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |