Need to move a server.
We have a CLM v4 Server, the plan is to try and move a large portion of the projects off it across to another physical server.
The issues we have are HUGE databases, we would like to be able to clean up the data after the move, ideally delete projects. Is there a way to clean up or source controlled files in CCM archived project? I understood that the public URL can be modified, with assistance / tool from PMR people is this still the case? Also is there a move project functionality planned / available ?? |
One answer
Hello,
the rename is possible, for example for version 4.0 you can find instructions here: https://jazz.net/library/article/818 Please note that contacting support is necessary to activate the feature. It is disabled by default to protect the environment from hasty rename attempts. Move project feature is planned for backlog: https://jazz.net/jazz/web/projects/Rational%20Team%20Concert#action=com.ibm.team.workitem.viewWorkItem&id=87778 Also, please read this thread for options to reduce the DB size: https://jazz.net/forum/questions/117448/rtc-is-there-a-way-to-reduce-size-of-current-db-apart-from-change-events-scrubbing Comments Just realize you can not do partial moves with server rename as you suggest you want to do - you have to move the whole server and its repository - server rename does not support splitting of repositories or moving merging of repositories Mark,
Just for clarification, are you trying to move the Database or move the server?
Ara
as mentioned, there is currently no mechanism to move/copy a project from one ccm repository to another.
As part of the first task at my new job there was a need to migrate and merge a couple projects from an old 3.0.1 server to our new production platform on 4.0.4
a coworker and I spent the better part of 2 months creating tools to do this. it is not for the faint of heart.
my utility copies the project structure, iterations->plans, streams, workspaces and build engines/defintions.
his utility copies all the workitem attachments, links, comments, description and approvals.
we use the standard export/import tools for workitems
sam detweiler
commented Mar 12 '14, 8:09 p.m.
and my utility still doesn't do plan views, dashboards, workitem templates, releases, personal queries, custom shared queries, and I'm sure the list goes on.
The development team is well aware of the need, however, as you just described, this is an enormous effort. There are also several different use cases that customers want to be covered, that might need different approaches. To make it worse, a lot of customers have other use cases high on their wishlist.
|
Your answer
Dashboards and work items are no longer publicly available, so some links may be invalid. We now provide similar information through other means. Learn more here.
Comments
I'm sorry, this response is not going to be of any help, but you highlight one of the most appalling aspects of the CLM tools, and that is administration and maintenance. The Move capability has been on the cards for years, the server rename is a hack, managing projects, well, it's very limited! They're only the ones you mentioned, I could go on!
Here is the plan item for moving projects.
Plan Item 93151: [JAF] Support moving projects between Jazz repositories
I'm sorry Erica, it's one thing to have it recorded in the system, it's another to see some real progress.
N Z: I personally agree that the architecture should have supported this from the first place (you'll note my signature on a lot of the earliest requests in this area :-), and I also agree that this is the cause for the difficulty of adding it in later. But in my view, this is not related in any way to the rapid delivery development model. If something will take more than one release to implement, we partition it into the appropriate number of releases, keeping code on a separate feature stream when appropriate (the "gap merge" SCM feature for example took 4 releases to complete, if you include the initial exploration phases). Frequent predictably-timed releases ensures that smaller features (and initial increments of larger features) can make it into the hands of the users who would benefit from them without being held up waiting for "all major features to be completed".
Hi Geoff, productive? Probably not! :-) However, we've put in RFE's, spoken to account managers, voted on requests, and nothing happens. "Venting" here is just another avenue.