crx2oak for Blue–Green deployment | Community
Skip to main content
another-dave
another-dave
Level 2
August 4, 2017

crx2oak for Blue–Green deployment

  • August 4, 2017
  • 3 replies
  • 4676 views
  1. I've seen some threads discussing the use of crx2oak for Blue–Green deployment, which sounds quite interesting, as one of the challenges of applying this deployment pattern with AEM is the question of how to handle syncing repositories easily.
  2. That said, other people recommend only running the repo migration offline (slide 9).
  3. The official documentation (Using the CRX2Oak Migration Tool) isn't conclusive either way — not even mentioning offline or online migrations, let alone that one way or the other is recommended (or prohibited).

So, is the use of crx2oak for a migration against a running instance of AEM a supported use-case? If so,

  • are there any limitations against running it in this way (e.g. speed)?
  • If there are limiting factors, does it have an impact if both instances are offline (versus one online and one offline).

Any info would be appreciated, and links to canonical documentation would be great if they exist.

    This post is no longer active and is closed to new replies. Need help? Start a new post to ask your question.

    3 replies

    smacdonald2008
    smacdonald2008
    Level 10
    August 4, 2017

    The Eng teams talks about the crx2oak tool in this GEMS session -- Deep dive into AEM upgrade process

    another-dave
    another-daveAuthor
    Level 2
    August 7, 2017

    Thanks, though from the slides & description (haven't had a chance to check video yet), it seems to be related to upgrades, rather than deployments, is that right? — Is deployment a supported use-case for crx2oak, or is it only for upgrades?

    joerghoh
    Adobe Employee
    joerghohAdobe Employee
    Adobe Employee
    August 8, 2017

    Hi,

    The blue-green deployment pattern post by Martin Fowler simply forgot a single item: What happens when blue is under constant change by its users while you prepare green?

    This is the problem with AEM, as your blue publishs are under constant change by authoring users. Oh, and don't forget that you have your single point of truth as well, the authoring instance. There you cannot apply this pattern at all, if you don't want to have a planned downtime for the time of the deployment.

    My conclusion: You cannot apply the classical blue-green approach.

    I normally do deployments in a way, that I use planned service downtimes on authoring, but none on publish.

    1. initiate service downtime on author
    2. deploy author
    3. remove 1st half of the publishing instances from loadbalancer, so that the 2nd half is serving all the requests.
    4. deploy 1st half of the publish instances
    5. switch loadbalancer, so the 1st half now servces all the requests
    6. deploy 2nd half
    7. bring all back online

    This is a modified version of the blue-green approach: I don't have a standby instance which just changes roles with the production instance. But I have enough redundancy in the frontend that I am able to perform the deployment without downtime.

    Jörg

      another-dave
      another-daveAuthor
      Level 2
      August 12, 2017

      Thanks Jörg,

      what I meant by Blue-Green in this case was to have a 'Blue' and a 'Green' author instance, one which is the live Production instance, and one acting as Pre-Prod. For example:

      1. Deploy new release to non-live servers (green), both author and publish.
      2. Enforce a content freeze on live author (blue).
      3. Run a synchronisation of content between live & non-live servers.
      4. Put green servers live, and set blue to non-live
      5. Lift the content freeze for authors.

      In theory, this set-up is quite feasible, even with a changing author, if we can quickly sync the latest changes from Blue back to Green — a minimal content freeze can be tolerable, especially if outside of normal business hours.

      I'm still not clear as to whether this is a supported use-case of the tooling though?

      another-dave
      another-daveAuthor
      Level 2
      August 18, 2017

      Hey - Kautuk and I looked at the AEM Docs here:

      Upgrading to AEM 6.3

      It clearly states to stop the instance of AEM while using this tool.

      I hope this helps.


      Hi Scott,

      Still find these docs confusing to be honest… So think you're talking about under the heading "Content repository migration and upgrade" where step #1 says "First, stop the instance if it is running."?

      These seems to be explicitly steps for upgrading though, rather than just content migraton, e.g. step #6 says "Start AEM to bring up the instance for the inplace upgrade."

      On the child page in the left-hand nav, "Using the CRX2Oak Migration Tool" it calls out three use-cases:

      I'm just looking at the second use-case — Copying data between multiple Oak repositories — rather than a full upgrade between versions.

      Also, it sounds like these two use cases even use different modes within the tool; from further down the page:

      So it's the "standalone" mode that I'm interested in rather than the "quickstart" mode.

      Finally on that page, under "Parameters: Migration options", it mentions:

      Which would seem to suggest that it is being run against an online instance (or at least, the instance is brought online by the tool as part of the migration?)

      Also oak-upgrade (which I presume shares a lot of internals, as the imagery on the documentation is identical), mentions at least an in-part online upgrade for Blob storage.

      Apologies if I didn't have enough detail in the first post & my question wasn't clear, but (as often seems the case with internal tools of AEM), that the docs are a little incomplete and at times contradictory.

      Looking into oak-upgrade more, I may just use this tool directly, as it does explicitly mention that it can be used for incremental upgrade:

      Incremental migration

      I'll experiment with it, but this coupled with a Shared blob storage (e.g. S3) may provide a quick enough synchronisation during the deploy itself for what I'm after.

      Thanks

      Dave

      kautuk_sahni
      Community Manager
      kautuk_sahniCommunity Manager
      Community Manager
      August 16, 2017

      Hi another-dave

      Accedently it got marked as correct. Thanks for the corrective notification. Apologies for this.

      ~kautuk

      Kautuk Sahni
      Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement

      Loading footer...