Are Bitbucket and Stash the same application?
As far as I understand Bitbucket was called before Stash?
How the moving from one system to the other is done?
As far as I know, the Stash was just renamed to Bitbucket.
I performed the migration from Stash to Bitbucket for one of our clients around a year ago. If my memory serves me right, the process was relatively painless. I first exported the data from Stash using the native export functionality, then I did a fresh Bitbucket install and afterwards just imported the Stash data in the freshly set up instance.
Your mileage may warry though depending on how big the repositories are and from what version are you migrating from. But I'm sure somebody at Atlassian Community forums will be able to help you out if you run into any issues. Or if you have SEN, just write to Atlassian support.
I'm reading the documentation on Scylla's upgrade procedures (
reading the dochttp://docs.scylladb.com/upgrade/upgrade-guide-from-2.0-to-2.1-ubuntu/ for example), and I'm seeing the standard "Stair-Step" path is required from 1.6->2.0->2.1, etc.
As a general question, if I have a backup from an older version of scylla 1.6 (or 1.4 or 1.5), is can I load that into a newer release and the data be migrated automatically? Is there a manual process or a tool that I can use?
Or is the only way to get data from 1.6 to 2.1 to load data into a 1.6 database, do a 1.6->1.7 upgrade, a 1.7->2.0 upgrade, then a 2.0->2.1 upgrade.
You can restore older backups into newer versions just fine. The stair-step procedure that is listed is intended for online migrations (without downtime). If you are doing offline migrations, you can skip versions just fine.
Note that there is a caveat with that: if the tables you are moving come from a different cluster (if you completely wiped out this cluster, for instance) then you have to be mindful of the token ranges of each node when copying the files: just because you had 5 nodes before and have 5 nodes now, it doesn't mean that those nodes own the same token ranges.
Aside from that small caveat, you are good to go!
We have a productive GitLab 6.8.1 running. I've set up a parallel VM with GitLab 7.10.4. Now I want to move all data from the old installation to the new one. I've already found a way how to move the bare repositories, but I have no clue how to import the user account information, issues, etc.
EDIT: The thing is further complicated by the fact that the original installation was built from source, was running on Debian, used MySQL as a database and the whole installation was pretty much messed up. That's why I didn't manage to migrate the old server and decided to set up a new one. The new server is an Ubuntu machine with GitLab installed from apt-get package (I think that's Omnibus, but I'm not sure what this means.) The new installation seems to use PostgreSQL.
FYI You haven't specified whether the old or new server is running a source installation or omnibus, or whether you're running a MySQL or Postgres database. Instructions differ depending on these factors, so please clarify and I will update my answer.
The first thing is that you will need your old and new servers to be on the same version of GitLab. You cannot migrate anything other than repos without having synchronized versions.
Depending on your reply to the above you will either follow instructions similar to the backup and restore tasks or by running the backup and restore tasks. Both options generally require you to manually copy configuration files or migrate settings from multiple files to a single new file (in the case of going from a source install to Omnibus). The Omnibus upgrade guide above lists the configuration files that need to be migrated depending on your environment.
Update based on edited question: There's a guide specifically for that scenario in this section of the Omnibus upgrade guide, using Option 2. You still need to have the same version on both old and new servers, though, I believe.
I'm going to start using Trac for the first time. From what I've gathered, the latest 0.12 is capable of supporting multiple project easily (which is something I will need since I got about 5 projects). However, it seems 0.12 is still in the development (0.12-dev). So, my question is, is it good enough for a newbie in Trac like me to use it? Does anyone has any experience using it ? It will be installed on a Linux server.
BTW, I'll only be using the basic functions such as svn browser, wiki, tickets and others.
0.12 is only going to support a subset of multiple projects (milestone) - you can now connect multiple source repositories with a single Trac environment. you will still need to create your own logic for handling multiple projects inside that single environment, with ticket components or whathaveyou.
i'm running all envs on 0.12 trunk (currently) r9280, i follow trac development timeline and hand pick my next revision to upgrade to, when something important gets a fix. some of my environments have multiple svn and git repositories connected. svn is rock solid, GitPlugin occasionally causes some quirks (rev caching issues mainly), but for me it's all minor compared to the convenience i get.
i would definitely recommend moving straight to 0.12-dev, i've already written a bit about some other benefits over 0.11.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
We are using Maven for a large build process (> 100 modules). We have been storing our external dependencies in source control, and using that to update a local repo.
However, we are ready to graduate to a local repo that can cache central so that we don't have to proactively download all 3rd parties (but we can still have a local repo to pull from). In addition we want to publish our internal build artifacts from a nightly build so that developers don't have to build the world.
We are considering Nexus and Artifactory. What are the reasons for preferring one over the other? Are there others we should be considering?
I'm sure that if you only talk about storing binaries from "mvn deploy" both will do fine.
We use Artifactory very extensively with all upgrades along the way. Lots of projects, numerous snapshots deployed and external repos proxied. Not a single problem. I find it hard to explain how other people experience issues with its DB, indexing or anything else. Nothing like that ever happened to us. Also, Artifactory allows to store data on a disk and only use a DB for storing metadata, it is quite flexible (see more here).
What makes those applications very different is their approach towards integration with other build tools and technologies. Nexus and Sonatype are pretty much locked on Maven and m2eclipse. They ignore anything else and only recently started to work on their own proprietary Hudson integration (see their Maven 3 webinar).
EDIT: This is not true anymore as of 2017 Nexus gives a much larger support for other build tools End of Edit
Artifactory provides an awesome Hudson, TeamCity and Bamboo integration, and Gradle / Ivy support. So while Nexus gives you nothing once you step out of Sonatype "comfort zone" (Maven, m2eclipse), Artifactory embraces and collaborates with all major build tools.
In fact, being able to deploy build artifacts from Hudson, when job has finished, and not by "mvn deploy" is a huge difference: Artifactory Hudson plugin makes an atomic-like deploy of all artifacts at once, only when a build job finished successfully. "mvn deploy" runs after each module and can deploy a partial set of artifacts if a build job fails in the middle. Deploying from Maven on module completion and not from a build server on job completion is really a bad thing to do.
As you see, Artifactory thinks "outside the box" while Nexus thinks "inside the box" and only cares about Maven and Maven artifacts.
Something else that makes Artifactory more accessible is their cloud-based Artifactory Online solution. For about $80 a month you have your own Artifactory instance, no need to dedicate any server for it.
Artifactory has a simple and straightforward REST API, don't know how it works for Nexus.
Edit Nexus has also a REST API that you can use easily as well.
To summarize, for basic storage of Maven artifacts I think both are fine. But while Nexus stops there being strictly a "Maven repository manager", Artifactory goes on and on, being a general "Binaries storage" for binaries of any kind, from any build tool and CI server.
I don't know about Artifactory but here are my reasons for using Nexus:
Dead simple install (and since 1.2, dead simple upgrade, too)
Very good web UI
Easy to maintain, almost no administrative overhead
Provides you with RSS feeds of recently installed, broken artifacts and errors
It can group several repositories so you can mirror several sources but need only one or two entries in your settings.xml
Deploying from Maven works out of the box (no need for WebDAV hacks, etc).
it's free
You can redirect access paths (i.e. some broken pom.xml requires "a.b.c" from "xxx"). Instead of patching the POM, you can fix the bug in Nexus and redirect the request to the place where the artifact really is.
Artifactory supports both file-system and database storage backends. Storage is checksum based and identical binaries are stored only once, no matter how many times they appear in the repo, which makes Artifactory more efficient storage-wise. Move and copy are also very cheap because of this architecture (in Nexus there's no REST for move/copy - you have to move stuff on the file system, then run corrective actions on the repo to let it know content has changed).
Another important differentiator is Artifactory has unique integration with Hudson and TeamCity for capturing information about deployed artifacts, resolved dependencies and environment data associated with build runs, which provides full build traceability.
Artifactory stores the artifacts in a database, which means that if something goes wrong, all your artifacts are gone. Nexus uses a flat file for your precious artifacts so you don't have to worry about them all getting lost.
If you need the "Pro" features of either (e.g. Staging repos, artifact promotion, NuGet), , then you need to consider the different pricing models, which are displayed on their websites.
http://www.jfrog.com/home/v_pricing
http://www.sonatype.com/nexus/purchase
In summary:
Artifactory Pro
you pay per server
you can pay more for increased service hours
Nexus Pro
you pay per seat, i.e. how many developers downloading artifacts
support service is Mon-Fri 0800-2000 ET only, no matter what you pay
No matter how many users you have, Nexus Pro offers a support service that's broadly equivalent to Artifactory's $7,450/year "Silver Value Pack".
$7,450/year will buy you approximately 67 Nexus Pro seats (1-50 # $108, the rest # $120).
On price and support alone then, Nexus Pro makes sense until you get to 67 users, at which point Artifactory becomes the cheaper option.
If you're doing all the support in-house; however, that magic point is about 23 users (Artifactory's most basic support offering is $2,750/year).
I made some research recenly about Artifactory 2 and Nexus 1.3. I'll list here the main differences I found:
Artifactory stores metadata and optionally files in DB, Nexus writes directly to file system. There are pros. and cons. for each approach. DB supports transactions, while in FS stored files can be accessed directly.
Artifactory has higher system requirements especially for disk space.
The most complete comparison: http://binary-repositories-comparison.github.io/
You should use Artifactory
Its latest version was a real jump
You can backup incrementally your repositories , which means you can have all your artifacts saved and maintain
Its has a easy to use web ui
and is really easy to set up
i enjoyed it a lot
check out its new version 2.0
From a learners point of view I note some specific differences between the two.
Sonatype .war deployment is not supported on Jboss application server at the time, although it does run under Tomcat.
Sonatype does not offer me an Amazon Machine Image (AMI), at present, that I could quickly stand up and test.
An Artifactory AMI is provided by Bitnami and takes a only a few minutes to stand up and a few more minutes to configure, maybe several tens of minutes dependant upon what you're trying to achieve.
Artifactory offer a SaaS version of Artifactory in the cloud so you can focus on getting things done rather than infrastructure.
I've no experience with Nexus but I've found Artifactory very intuitive and easy to configure, at least initially.
Added - I do note that the Artifactory User Guide, which may be OK for a seasoned pro, is a bit light on for some in depth explanations. For instance, starting out, one unzips and then addes a Repository, say RedHat's Jboss EAP Enterprise Repo. All goes fine but then when I tried to view the artifacts that were imported Artifactory reports zero artifacts? No errors or warnings so I'm now looking for an explanation. Is this normal or not normal? A simple explanation in the doco can quickly point one in the right direction. Being a good contributor I'm adding these comments to the project for the benefit of other starters.
All politics/religion aside, licensing makes a difference for some organizations.
Nexus is GPL now AGPLv3 and now Eclipse Public License (EPL).
Artifactory is Apache licensed LGPLv3 licensed as of version 2.1 of the product.
You may also want to consider Archiva, just for comparison's sake. It's Apache 2.0 licensed.
I see that Nexus usage is growing, while Artifcatory usage is generaly staying flat.
Picture is taken from here http://blog.sonatype.com/2014/11/42000-nexus-repository-managers-and-growing/
There is also matrix-comparison http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVENUSER/Maven+Repository+Manager+Feature+Matrix
Both Artifactory and Nexus have more or less similar feature set but Artifactory's LDAP support makes it more attractive over Nexus. Though Nexus also have LDAP support but in paid version :-(
Hmmm...my experience with artifactory is awful...but I'm a relative newbie so take it with a grain of salt. My overall complaint is that jar files recently uploaded to Artifactory do not seem to get indexed right away - as in for hours - and there does not seem to be a good way to force it. I've tried various things that appeared as if they should have worked, but didn't. I have been working with m2eclipse, adding dependencies to a project that i'm converting from ant. When I try to add a jar that I have just added to artifactory, I expect it to show up as a choice in the selector but it does not.
a coworker told me that they had installed nexus and so far they like it...but I can't vouch for it yet. I'm about to install that on a Linux box as soon as IT can find me one.