David Shrewsbury | 2 Jul 15:26 2009
Picon

Drizzle configuration file

Hello Drizzlers,

So it seems that currently, the drizzle server reads a different
configuration file (drizzled.cnf) from the drizzle clients (drizzle.cnf).
This differs from the MySQL behavior, and I believe this is so far
unintentional. The fix is easy enough, but the question is, do we
want to fix this? Or do we want to separate the server config file
from the clients?

I've heard at least one community member say that they prefer
having different configs, but I've also heard the counter argument.
We'd like to get more community feedback before making this change.

Thoughts?

-Dave

_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to     : drizzle-discuss@...
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Jay Pipes | 2 Jul 15:35 2009
Picon

Re: Drizzle configuration file

David Shrewsbury wrote:
> Hello Drizzlers,
> 
> So it seems that currently, the drizzle server reads a different
> configuration file (drizzled.cnf) from the drizzle clients (drizzle.cnf).
> This differs from the MySQL behavior, and I believe this is so far
> unintentional. The fix is easy enough, but the question is, do we
> want to fix this? Or do we want to separate the server config file
> from the clients?
> 
> I've heard at least one community member say that they prefer
> having different configs, but I've also heard the counter argument.
> We'd like to get more community feedback before making this change.

I vote for a single configuration file, drizzle.cnf, with multiple 
sections, like MySQL does it.

-jay

_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to     : drizzle-discuss@...
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Jay Paroline | 2 Jul 15:48 2009

Re: Drizzle configuration file

I'd like to see the config files remain separate. I once had a network 
admin accidentally overwite our my.conf file trying to run innotop on a 
production server. Innotop simply overwrote the entire my.conf instead 
of just modifying the appropriate section. Needless to say, this caused 
some major strife.

Jay

On 7/2/2009 9:26 AM, David Shrewsbury wrote:
> Hello Drizzlers,
>
> So it seems that currently, the drizzle server reads a different
> configuration file (drizzled.cnf) from the drizzle clients (drizzle.cnf).
> This differs from the MySQL behavior, and I believe this is so far
> unintentional. The fix is easy enough, but the question is, do we
> want to fix this? Or do we want to separate the server config file
> from the clients?
>
> I've heard at least one community member say that they prefer
> having different configs, but I've also heard the counter argument.
> We'd like to get more community feedback before making this change.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
> Post to     : drizzle-discuss@...
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
(Continue reading)

Brian Aker | 2 Jul 16:54 2009

Re: Drizzle configuration file

Hi!

On Jul 2, 2009, at 6:26 AM, David Shrewsbury wrote:

> configuration file (drizzled.cnf) from the drizzle clients  
> (drizzle.cnf).

I believe I did this on purpose early on... but I am open to whatever  
people are thinking :)

Cheers,
	-Brian

_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to     : drizzle-discuss@...
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Tim Soderstrom | 2 Jul 16:46 2009

Re: Drizzle configuration file

I agree with this one. I thought there was some really cool ideas  
being tossed around about doing crazy cool things like putting the  
configs on an LDAP server, among other things. Seems like it would  
make sense to have them separate for those cases?

*shrug*

Tim

On Jul 2, 2009, at 8:48 AM, Jay Paroline wrote:

> I'd like to see the config files remain separate. I once had a  
> network admin accidentally overwite our my.conf file trying to run  
> innotop on a production server. Innotop simply overwrote the entire  
> my.conf instead of just modifying the appropriate section. Needless  
> to say, this caused some major strife.
>
> Jay
>
> On 7/2/2009 9:26 AM, David Shrewsbury wrote:
>> Hello Drizzlers,
>>
>> So it seems that currently, the drizzle server reads a different
>> configuration file (drizzled.cnf) from the drizzle clients  
>> (drizzle.cnf).
>> This differs from the MySQL behavior, and I believe this is so far
>> unintentional. The fix is easy enough, but the question is, do we
>> want to fix this? Or do we want to separate the server config file
>> from the clients?
>>
(Continue reading)

Erik Jacobson | 2 Jul 17:24 2009

Re: Drizzle configuration file

I would imagine having them in separate files would make things a little 
easy for purposes of packaging.  Right now, for example, Debian uses a 
separate mysql-common package that holds essentially just the my.cnf 
file (and a couple init scripts) due to both client and server needing 
it.  And, while I don't recall all the details through the haze of time 
and rage, I recall a few instances where this extra dependency has 
actually caused more headaches then simply upgrading the server and 
client independently should have (mainly because of my laziness, but it 
was annoying enough to remember).

Also, the mention earlier of programs automatically editing configs was 
a good point.  While this is more of a badly written parser problem, 
it's certainly a problem that can be avoided to some extent.  In 
addition to configuration management solutions like Puppet, especially 
in an environment with many more client then server configs needed, 
which may benefit from separate files (not that Puppet can't handle 
dynamic configurations based on system needs, but again, ease of 
administration).

In the end, I'd say there's a few minor pros to separate files, as 
opposed to the convenience of only having to edit one file.  Not that I 
see every angle, of course. ;)

Brian Aker wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Jul 2, 2009, at 6:26 AM, David Shrewsbury wrote:
>
>> configuration file (drizzled.cnf) from the drizzle clients 
>> (drizzle.cnf).
(Continue reading)

Stewart Smith | 2 Jul 17:55 2009

a pastebin running on Drizzle

Want to dogfood when you pastebin?

http://pastebin.flamingspork.com/

I'll keep it up to date with Drizzle and libdrizzle and drizzle-php-ext
as much as i can.

I'll also attempt to keep the data... but no promises.

All source is open (as is the original) and can be downloaded from the
help page.
--

-- 
Stewart Smith

_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to     : drizzle-discuss@...
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Clint Byrum | 2 Jul 18:22 2009

Re: Drizzle configuration file

My vote would be for separate config files.

Just the other day we found where some of our servers had an outdated / 
etc/my.cnf file that was missing

[client]
default-character-set=utf8

Which caused the client libs on those servers to connect to servers  
with latin1, so the server double-encoded every utf8 char that was  
submitted.

This happened because the machine had been modified for running mysqld  
without regard to the client section.

I think things that are actually common to all drizzle programs (does  
anything like this even exist?) can go in the common drizzle.cnf.. but  
drizzled's configs should be in their own file.

On Jul 2, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Erik Jacobson wrote:

> I would imagine having them in separate files would make things a  
> little easy for purposes of packaging.  Right now, for example,  
> Debian uses a separate mysql-common package that holds essentially  
> just the my.cnf file (and a couple init scripts) due to both client  
> and server needing it.  And, while I don't recall all the details  
> through the haze of time and rage, I recall a few instances where  
> this extra dependency has actually caused more headaches then simply  
> upgrading the server and client independently should have (mainly  
> because of my laziness, but it was annoying enough to remember).
(Continue reading)

Trond Norbye | 2 Jul 17:58 2009
Picon

Re: Drizzle configuration file

Brian Aker wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Jul 2, 2009, at 6:26 AM, David Shrewsbury wrote:
>
>> configuration file (drizzled.cnf) from the drizzle clients 
>> (drizzle.cnf).
>
> I believe I did this on purpose early on... but I am open to whatever 
> people are thinking :)

I think that we should separate the client configuration from the server 
configuration, so I say we should keep it the way it is :-)

Cheers,

Trond

_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to     : drizzle-discuss@...
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Jay Pipes | 2 Jul 21:47 2009
Picon

Re: Drizzle configuration file

Roy Lyseng wrote:
> 
> 
> Trond Norbye wrote:
>> Brian Aker wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> On Jul 2, 2009, at 6:26 AM, David Shrewsbury wrote:
>>>
>>>> configuration file (drizzled.cnf) from the drizzle clients 
>>>> (drizzle.cnf).
>>>
>>> I believe I did this on purpose early on... but I am open to whatever 
>>> people are thinking :)
>>
>> I think that we should separate the client configuration from the 
>> server configuration, so I say we should keep it the way it is :-)
> 
> drizzle.cnf and drizzled.cnf are easy to confuse. May I suggest to use 
> drizzle-client.cnf and drizzle-server.cnf instead - if the decision is 
> to have separate files?

I'd have to agree with Roy here...as much as hate to agree with Roy, you 
know... ;)

-jay

_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to     : drizzle-discuss@...
(Continue reading)


Gmane