jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Guggisberg <stefan.guggisb...@day.com>
Subject Re: Problems migrating from 1.6.0 to 2.1.0
Date Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:36:15 GMT
hi robin,

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Robin Wyles <robin@jacaranda.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm having problems migrating an existing repository from Jackrabbit 1.6.0 to 2.1.0.
> Here are the steps I followed to test the migration:
> 1. Update app to use Jackrabbit 2.1.0, run unit tests etc. Manually test against empty
2.1.0 repository. All works fine here. Our repository configuration has not changed at all
between versions.
> 2. Used mysqldump to export production repository.
> 3. Copy production repository directory (workspace folder, datastore, index folders etc.)
to test machine.
> 4. Import SQL file from 2 above to new DB on test machine.
> 5. Start application on test machine.
> The result of the above is that the application starts up without error but that the
repository appears empty. I am able to add new nodes to the repository, which behave correctly
within the application yet none of the existing nodes are visible. I've tried xpath queries
against known paths, e.g. "//library/*" and these return 0 nodes.
> A few things I've tried/noticed:
> 1. Repeating steps 3 and 4 above, then removing the old index directories before starting
the application. Jackrabbit creates new lucene indexes, but they are very small, just like
they would be when initialising an empty repository. Also, the index files are called indexes_2
rather than indexes as they were under 1.6.0.
> 2. When starting the app after the migration I notice that 4 extra records have been
added to the BUNDLE table, 3 extra records are added to the VERSION_BUNDLE table and 2 extra
records added to the VERSION_NAMES table. Again, this seems to be consistent with what is
added automatically added to the database when a new repository is initialised.
> So, basically it appears that Jackrabbit is completely ignoring the existing repository
data, and instead initialising a new repos using the existing database…
> If anyone has any ideas as to how I can get 2.1.0 to recognise our existing repository
they'd be gratefully received - I feel there must be something simple I've overlooked!

hmm, seems like the key values (i.e. the id format) has changed.
however, i am not aware of such a change.
maybe someone else knows more?


> Many thanks,
> Robin

View raw message