movable type close up Lately, I’ve been in the business of migrating between hosting providers. We’re moving away from the classic web host CentOS. The reason that CentOS became the web host OS of choice in the middle of the decade still eludes. I just imagine a some RHEL fan club being told to implement a linux web host solution with no budget and CentOS was the fruit of that effort. Our new host is of the new ultra-trendy VPS type. We chose slicehost on some recommendations from friends. I host my own blog and some other stuff on a VPS at I fired it up with Intrepid Ibex (of course) and started migrating stuff over the Ubuntu way.

That’s all well and good, but the reason I’m writing this is because I found a great way to move our largest system which is a family of blogs related to We’d been using movable type to publish blogs since version 2.x, and the new systems are running 4.x. Back then, the only publishing option was to physically build every page for the entire system ahead of time. That system works great when you have only a few hundred entries, but when you start getting into the 10s of thousands of entries, static publishing begins to break down a little. It takes most of a day to publish the entire site if you make a global template change. Combine this with the fact that we’re attempting to redesign the blogs during the move, and we’ve got a lot to juggle.

So what’s the best way to build movable type templates on a running system so we can be sure to account for changing content during a migration? The answer is through database replication. I set the old server that lives on westhost do be a master replication server which basically just means that it will log transactions in a binary log file somewhere on the filesystem so another server(s) can read it and stay in sync with the master. I set up the new VPS at slicehost to be a slave and replication started flowing like magic. Watching database replication work for the first time was actually much more fun than I thought it would be. The only real problem with this solution is that if you make changes to the slave, then the system is likely to fault when the master makes related changes. But with movable type, all the changes I want to make are template related. I then supplied a list of tables that I want the slave to ignore with “replicate-ignore-table” directives.

What did I gain out of this? I have two separate movable type installations that live in different physical locations somewhere out in the internet. They both share all the same live content, but they do not share the same templates. I can independently change the tables on both instances without affecting the other. This simply means that our designer can log on to the new one and template to his heart’s content and watch the templates go live on the new system without affecting the existing system. This makes for a much more convenient and testable working environment than we’re used to. When it comes time to make the switch and the new templates are ready, all I have to do is make the DNS switch and replication will likely just fail silently. Now that we’ve switched to dynamic page building, there’s really no reason to have any down-time at all. Nothing needs to be archived and frozen in time, just backed up securely. Next time we do a major redesign, I’ll consider doing this same thing even if we don’t have a server migration.