Volume naming breaks migration

[elwali10]

Hello team,

It would be great to have a consistent naming convention for the volumes and avoid breaking the migration processes. An example:

• https://github.com/wazuh/wazuh-docker/blob/v4.2.5/production-cluster.yml#L24-L34 - ossec_api_configuration:/var/ossec/api/configuration
• https://github.com/wazuh/wazuh-docker/blob/v4.2.5/docker-compose.yml#L20-L30 - ossec-api-configuration:/var/ossec/api/configuration

If a user used the above docker-compose.yml (more common) and migrated the data using https://github.com/wazuh/wazuh-docker/blob/master/multi-node/volume-migrator.sh, the process would fail due to the naming difference.

Regards, Elwali

[havidarou]

This is related to https://github.com/wazuh/wazuh/issues/9175

[vcerenu]

The previous nomenclature separated two environments (4.2.x version):

• production-cluster.yml which displayed a production environment with cluster included and persistence in all necessary directories.
• docker-compose.yml which contains an example deployment, had persistence in Wazuh manager directories but no persistence in opendistro data and no clustering of services.

With release 4.3.x the uses of the environments were modified, the single-node environment which does not have a cluster but does have persistence, and the multi-node environment, which has persistence and clustering, equivalent to the environment created by the production script -cluster.yml from 4.2.x.

At the time of creating the migration script, the productive environment of 4.2.x was taken into account, which had cluster and persistence and for this reason the script is found in the path of the multi-node deployment of 4.3.x. The environment deployed by the docker-compose.yml script was not taken into account because it was a test deployment, as indicated in the documentation. https://documentation.wazuh.com/4.2/docker/wazuh-container.html#demo-deployment

If necessary, a migration script could be created for a test environment to a single-node environment, but if they have added persistence on the user side, we could not contemplate it.

[teddytpc1]

This is no longer needed.