Re: [galaxy-dev] Using an unique database for tow differents versions of Galaxy
Definitely not. And please keep replies on the list. -- jt On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Chebbi Mohamed Amine <chebbimamine@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes the two instances are of two different versions. So if I understand well there is no mean to do it like this ? Thanks
2012/9/21 James Taylor <james@jamestaylor.org>
If the two different Galaxy instances are different *versions* of Galaxy, this is unlikely to work out well.
-- jt
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Chebbi Mohamed Amine <chebbimamine@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Galaxy-team!
I installed recently two differents versions of Galaxy and I would like to use the same database for the two instances without loosing data (histories, workflows etc..).
Thank you in advance Amine
___________________________________________________________ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:
Perhaps I missed it but why 'Definitely not' ? If storage is a limiting factor/constraint, then may be worth attempting ... ? Promita On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:13 PM, James Taylor <james@jamestaylor.org> wrote:
Definitely not. And please keep replies on the list.
-- jt
Yes the two instances are of two different versions. So if I understand well there is no mean to do it like this ? Thanks
2012/9/21 James Taylor <james@jamestaylor.org>
If the two different Galaxy instances are different *versions* of Galaxy, this is unlikely to work out well.
-- jt
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Chebbi Mohamed Amine <chebbimamine@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Galaxy-team!
I installed recently two differents versions of Galaxy and I would
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Chebbi Mohamed Amine <chebbimamine@gmail.com> wrote: like
to use the same database for the two instances without loosing data (histories, workflows etc..).
Thank you in advance Amine
___________________________________________________________ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:
___________________________________________________________ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:
-- *MSc * Promita Bose 404-408-9060
The main problem with different versions of galaxy is that the database schema that they expect (as applied by versioned migrations from the galaxy codebase) is different. So you could end up working with a database that has fields and keys you aren't expecting, which would be bad. -Dannon On Sep 21, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Promita Bose <bosepromita@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps I missed it but why 'Definitely not' ? If storage is a limiting factor/constraint, then may be worth attempting ... ?
Promita
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:13 PM, James Taylor <james@jamestaylor.org> wrote: Definitely not. And please keep replies on the list.
-- jt
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Chebbi Mohamed Amine <chebbimamine@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes the two instances are of two different versions. So if I understand well there is no mean to do it like this ? Thanks
2012/9/21 James Taylor <james@jamestaylor.org>
If the two different Galaxy instances are different *versions* of Galaxy, this is unlikely to work out well.
-- jt
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Chebbi Mohamed Amine <chebbimamine@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Galaxy-team!
I installed recently two differents versions of Galaxy and I would like to use the same database for the two instances without loosing data (histories, workflows etc..).
Thank you in advance Amine
___________________________________________________________ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:
___________________________________________________________ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:
-- MSc Promita Bose 404-408-9060
___________________________________________________________ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:
Maybe a better question is why you would want two separate versions of galaxy running to begin with. There could be another way to solve your problem. -Scott ----- Original Message -----
The main problem with different versions of galaxy is that the database schema that they expect (as applied by versioned migrations from the galaxy codebase) is different. So you could end up working with a database that has fields and keys you aren't expecting, which would be bad.
-Dannon
On Sep 21, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Promita Bose <bosepromita@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps I missed it but why 'Definitely not' ? If storage is a limiting factor/constraint, then may be worth attempting ... ?
Promita
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:13 PM, James Taylor <james@jamestaylor.org> wrote: Definitely not. And please keep replies on the list.
-- jt
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Chebbi Mohamed Amine <chebbimamine@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes the two instances are of two different versions. So if I understand well there is no mean to do it like this ? Thanks
2012/9/21 James Taylor <james@jamestaylor.org>
If the two different Galaxy instances are different *versions* of Galaxy, this is unlikely to work out well.
-- jt
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Chebbi Mohamed Amine <chebbimamine@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Galaxy-team!
I installed recently two differents versions of Galaxy and I would like to use the same database for the two instances without loosing data (histories, workflows etc..).
Thank you in advance Amine
___________________________________________________________ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:
___________________________________________________________ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:
-- MSc Promita Bose 404-408-9060
___________________________________________________________ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:
___________________________________________________________ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:
My 2 cents, assuming not already implemented. I would like to have two separate galaxy versions where each version has an independent set of tools . Promita On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Scott McManus <scottmcmanus@gatech.edu>wrote:
Maybe a better question is why you would want two separate versions of galaxy running to begin with. There could be another way to solve your problem.
-Scott
----- Original Message -----
The main problem with different versions of galaxy is that the database schema that they expect (as applied by versioned migrations from the galaxy codebase) is different. So you could end up working with a database that has fields and keys you aren't expecting, which would be bad.
-Dannon
On Sep 21, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Promita Bose <bosepromita@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps I missed it but why 'Definitely not' ? If storage is a limiting factor/constraint, then may be worth attempting ... ?
Promita
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:13 PM, James Taylor <james@jamestaylor.org> wrote: Definitely not. And please keep replies on the list.
-- jt
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Chebbi Mohamed Amine <chebbimamine@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes the two instances are of two different versions. So if I understand well there is no mean to do it like this ? Thanks
2012/9/21 James Taylor <james@jamestaylor.org>
If the two different Galaxy instances are different *versions* of Galaxy, this is unlikely to work out well.
-- jt
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Chebbi Mohamed Amine <chebbimamine@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Galaxy-team!
I installed recently two differents versions of Galaxy and I would like to use the same database for the two instances without loosing data (histories, workflows etc..).
Thank you in advance Amine
___________________________________________________________ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:
___________________________________________________________ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:
-- MSc Promita Bose 404-408-9060
___________________________________________________________ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:
___________________________________________________________ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:
___________________________________________________________ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:
-- *MSc * Promita Bose 404-408-9060
So in this case how is it possible to migrate data form the old database to the new one. In fact i have two different versions of Galaxy installed in my machine and I don't want to loose data like histories that I creted in the old version one. Thanks for help Amine 2012/9/21 Dannon Baker <dannonbaker@me.com>
The main problem with different versions of galaxy is that the database schema that they expect (as applied by versioned migrations from the galaxy codebase) is different. So you could end up working with a database that has fields and keys you aren't expecting, which would be bad.
-Dannon
On Sep 21, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Promita Bose <bosepromita@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps I missed it but why 'Definitely not' ? If storage is a limiting factor/constraint, then may be worth attempting ... ?
Promita
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:13 PM, James Taylor <james@jamestaylor.org> wrote: Definitely not. And please keep replies on the list.
-- jt
Yes the two instances are of two different versions. So if I understand well there is no mean to do it like this ? Thanks
2012/9/21 James Taylor <james@jamestaylor.org>
If the two different Galaxy instances are different *versions* of Galaxy, this is unlikely to work out well.
-- jt
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Chebbi Mohamed Amine <chebbimamine@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Galaxy-team!
I installed recently two differents versions of Galaxy and I would
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Chebbi Mohamed Amine <chebbimamine@gmail.com> wrote: like
to use the same database for the two instances without loosing data (histories, workflows etc..).
Thank you in advance Amine
___________________________________________________________ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:
___________________________________________________________ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:
-- MSc Promita Bose 404-408-9060
___________________________________________________________ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:
participants (5)
-
Chebbi Mohamed Amine -
Dannon Baker -
James Taylor -
Promita Bose -
Scott McManus