Assigned
Status Update
No update yet.
Comments
ts...@google.com
I have had this problem also. I released the free version of my application and
thought that I had set the sharedUserId in preparation for later releasing the paid
version of my application. I needed to be able to copy the database from the free
version to the paid version, so I set the sharedUserId. However I followed the
instructions for sharedUserLabel which says "The label must be set as a reference to
a string resource; it cannot be a raw string." and also set my sharedUserId as a
@string value. However it turns out that the sharedUserId must be a raw string (the
opposite of sharedUserLabel).
The problem is that my already released free application has the sharedUserId set to
a value which didn't work. I changed it to a raw string which now works to share the
database with the paid version. However I posted my update of the free application
with the sharedUserId set to the new raw string value to Android Market without
realizing that the application would no longer be able to access its own database.
When people upgraded to the new version, it would crash as soon as it tried to open
its database.
thought that I had set the sharedUserId in preparation for later releasing the paid
version of my application. I needed to be able to copy the database from the free
version to the paid version, so I set the sharedUserId. However I followed the
instructions for sharedUserLabel which says "The label must be set as a reference to
a string resource; it cannot be a raw string." and also set my sharedUserId as a
@string value. However it turns out that the sharedUserId must be a raw string (the
opposite of sharedUserLabel).
The problem is that my already released free application has the sharedUserId set to
a value which didn't work. I changed it to a raw string which now works to share the
database with the paid version. However I posted my update of the free application
with the sharedUserId set to the new raw string value to Android Market without
realizing that the application would no longer be able to access its own database.
When people upgraded to the new version, it would crash as soon as it tried to open
its database.
rp...@beneficiofacil.com.br
I've run into this issue as well, was hoping that this might be moved out of the unreproducible state as I can't
add a sharedUserId to existing applications now.
add a sharedUserId to existing applications now.
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
I confirm this is still a problem on 2.1.
And it is easy to reproduce. I can provide a sample application demonstrating the
problem. Let me know if you need it.
And it is easy to reproduce. I can provide a sample application demonstrating the
problem. Let me know if you need it.
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
And this is defect, not enhancement: developer doesn't expect that adding
sharedUserId to an application would forbid this application from accessing *its* data.
sharedUserId to an application would forbid this application from accessing *its* data.
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
I want the exact same thing to be dona as skyhigh1001. I have a free version with a
sharedUserId and now i want to access the database of the free version into the paid
version of the application. How do I achieve this can any 1 upload the source code or
any piece of code to make this happen. PLs guys help me out.
Andriy.Tsykholyas if u can put up your sample application it would be helpful.
Thanks in advance guys. Looking forward to your reply. :) Cheers
sharedUserId and now i want to access the database of the free version into the paid
version of the application. How do I achieve this can any 1 upload the source code or
any piece of code to make this happen. PLs guys help me out.
Andriy.Tsykholyas if u can put up your sample application it would be helpful.
Thanks in advance guys. Looking forward to your reply. :) Cheers
je...@panerabread.com
I am having this same problem as vish.shal and skyhigh. The workaround I've used is
to implement a ContentProvider for accessing data from the free version.
ContentProviders make data from your app available to others, which is what an app
with a different uid is as far as the OS is concerned. For database access, you just
need to implement the query method, which is designed for returning a cursor over the
database.
to implement a ContentProvider for accessing data from the free version.
ContentProviders make data from your app available to others, which is what an app
with a different uid is as far as the OS is concerned. For database access, you just
need to implement the query method, which is designed for returning a cursor over the
database.
mo...@google.com
Comment has been deleted.
da...@flockfreight.com
If you want both apps to be installed and active continuously, then 1) is a problem.
I'm envisioning a situation where the 2nd app replaces the first, so yes there is a
performance penalty but only during the upgrade process. No biggie.
Although if you want 2 components installed, you might be better off releasing a new
version of each with the manifest fixed and telling all your old users to reinstall.
You could implement an import procedure to make it easy.
In regards to sharing resources, the same logic would apply, although this:
http://developer.android.com/reference/android/content/ContentResolver.html#openAssetFileDescriptor
explains how to share resources. I would imagine performance would still be an issue.
I'm envisioning a situation where the 2nd app replaces the first, so yes there is a
performance penalty but only during the upgrade process. No biggie.
Although if you want 2 components installed, you might be better off releasing a new
version of each with the manifest fixed and telling all your old users to reinstall.
You could implement an import procedure to make it easy.
In regards to sharing resources, the same logic would apply, although this:
explains how to share resources. I would imagine performance would still be an issue.
sd...@gmail.com
Anyone have a workaround for this problem once the app has been updated with the new sharedUserId? I made the mistake of doing this and the app started crashing. I removed the attribute and uploaded the update to the market but the problem persists. It seems like Android is not assigning it the same id it had before the sharedUserId was added (even though the latest version has the sharedUserId attribute removed). Anyone have a satisfactory solution to this problem?
Summary: Version 1 did not have sharedUserId. Version 2 had sharedUserId leading to force closes. Version 3 does not have sharedUserId but still force closes with the same error.
Summary: Version 1 did not have sharedUserId. Version 2 had sharedUserId leading to force closes. Version 3 does not have sharedUserId but still force closes with the same error.
em...@gmail.com
Steps to reproduce:
1) take any Android device/emulator
2) write a program without shareduserid set, which uses database (create database).
3) install it: adb install oldVersion.apk
3) modify the program by adding shareduserid, increment versionCode
4) try to upgrade old version by the new one (ex: adb install -r newVersion.apk)
5*) note that database is not accessible
6*) note logcat records:
01-14 18:03:20.969: DEBUG/PackageManager(62): Shared UserID ru.yandex.uid.shared (uid=10038): packages=[PackageSetting{44162c10
ru.yandex.mail/10038}, PackageSetting{440c2808 ru.yandex.mail/10038}]
01-14 18:03:20.969: INFO/PackageManager(62): Package ru.yandex.mail codePath changed from /data/app/ru.yandex.mail-2.apk to /dat
a/app/ru.yandex.mail-1.apk; Retaining data and using new
01-14 18:03:20.989: WARN/PackageManager(62): Package ru.yandex.mail shared user changed from <nothing> to ru.yandex.uid.shared;
replacing with new
01-14 18:03:21.019: ERROR/PackageManager(62): Package ru.yandex.mail has mismatched uid: 10040 on disk, 10038 in settings
Expected result: file permissions MUST be changed to correspond with newly created UID OR the app UID MUST be untouched.
1) take any Android device/emulator
2) write a program without shareduserid set, which uses database (create database).
3) install it: adb install oldVersion.apk
3) modify the program by adding shareduserid, increment versionCode
4) try to upgrade old version by the new one (ex: adb install -r newVersion.apk)
5*) note that database is not accessible
6*) note logcat records:
01-14 18:03:20.969: DEBUG/PackageManager(62): Shared UserID ru.yandex.uid.shared (uid=10038): packages=[PackageSetting{44162c10
ru.yandex.mail/10038}, PackageSetting{440c2808 ru.yandex.mail/10038}]
01-14 18:03:20.969: INFO/PackageManager(62): Package ru.yandex.mail codePath changed from /data/app/ru.yandex.mail-2.apk to /dat
a/app/ru.yandex.mail-1.apk; Retaining data and using new
01-14 18:03:20.989: WARN/PackageManager(62): Package ru.yandex.mail shared user changed from <nothing> to ru.yandex.uid.shared;
replacing with new
01-14 18:03:21.019: ERROR/PackageManager(62): Package ru.yandex.mail has mismatched uid: 10040 on disk, 10038 in settings
Expected result: file permissions MUST be changed to correspond with newly created UID OR the app UID MUST be untouched.
jk...@gmail.com
I have had this problem also. And any one have perfect solution?
ag...@gmail.com
I wrote this comment in
I want appA on deviceA to write values to an SQLite database and appB on deviceB to read those values from that database.
I'm doing this for a Honours (Multimedia) project at the University of Pretoria in South Africa and do not plan to publish my app on the Market - I simply want to pass my degree :)
Will I be able to create new versions of my app by specifying the same UserID in each app's Manifest.xml file or should I attempt to make use of Content Providers and Content Resolvers?
In future I do want to create apps and publish them on the Market, so I too need this issue to be resolved or at least a reliable solution to be found. But I'm too new to Android to have discovered anything that will be of use, just yet :)
I want appA on deviceA to write values to an SQLite database and appB on deviceB to read those values from that database.
I'm doing this for a Honours (Multimedia) project at the University of Pretoria in South Africa and do not plan to publish my app on the Market - I simply want to pass my degree :)
Will I be able to create new versions of my app by specifying the same UserID in each app's Manifest.xml file or should I attempt to make use of Content Providers and Content Resolvers?
In future I do want to create apps and publish them on the Market, so I too need this issue to be resolved or at least a reliable solution to be found. But I'm too new to Android to have discovered anything that will be of use, just yet :)
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
I am seeing this bug regardless of setting sharedUserId.
01-26 11:23:26.524: E/PackageManager(1595): Packagecom.mycompany.android.app has mismatched uid: 10102 on disk, 10014 in settings
We have never set the sharedUserId. The device underwent a upgrade to the latest version of Android (HTC Flyer) after which running the app or fresh install causes the various files in cache to be inaccessible since they are tied to the old UID. Since the pre-upgrade file system associates the UID for that package differently from the post-upgrade UID, the current application cannot do any file access which it may have had to do. This affects any webviews in the app (Admob uses webview to display ads), database open/access, sharedPreferences, etc.
Some have noted this happens when you transition an installed application from secured to unsecured. I have seen this happen simply by hitting the run application feature in Eclipse. One too may installs and the system applies a new UID to the package.
So far, the factory reset is the only known solution to fix this.
01-26 11:23:26.524: E/PackageManager(1595): Package
We have never set the sharedUserId. The device underwent a upgrade to the latest version of Android (HTC Flyer) after which running the app or fresh install causes the various files in cache to be inaccessible since they are tied to the old UID. Since the pre-upgrade file system associates the UID for that package differently from the post-upgrade UID, the current application cannot do any file access which it may have had to do. This affects any webviews in the app (Admob uses webview to display ads), database open/access, sharedPreferences, etc.
Some have noted this happens when you transition an installed application from secured to unsecured. I have seen this happen simply by hitting the run application feature in Eclipse. One too may installs and the system applies a new UID to the package.
So far, the factory reset is the only known solution to fix this.
sh...@datacue.co
A factory reset inflicted this on me. Apparently Google/Android think it is acceptable to erase filesystems when their package installer fails to encrypt properly. If the battery dies while it is encrypting, for example, Android triggers an unstoppable factory reset on the next boot.
I had anticipated that this travesty of an operating system might destroy /data and /system somehow, and had backed them up to a squashfs. Recovering them was more trouble than expected because of this issue -- some UIDs had changed. FX, the file manager I normally use, could no longer gain root access and mentioned this issue. I had to install the terminal app with a file:/// URI from the browser (which is unable to list directories). Eventually I was able to extract /data and /system to an ext4 filesystem on my external SD card and rsync the factory defaults to oblivion.
I had anticipated that this travesty of an operating system might destroy /data and /system somehow, and had backed them up to a squashfs. Recovering them was more trouble than expected because of this issue -- some UIDs had changed. FX, the file manager I normally use, could no longer gain root access and mentioned this issue. I had to install the terminal app with a file:/// URI from the browser (which is unable to list directories). Eventually I was able to extract /data and /system to an ext4 filesystem on my external SD card and rsync the factory defaults to oblivion.
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
Android also reintroduced this issue when it forgot how to read Kindle's dm-crypt filesystem on the SD card and I reinstalled it. Finding the UID that Android assigns is tricky. I was able to get Kindle running long enough before it crashed to dig its UID out of `ps`. With that I could chown all its data correctly.
wa...@greenaerotech.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
Just been hit hard by this. Was receiving countless reports of "Error 24" (nice work on the meaningful error reporting, Google) from people trying to update my app. Finally figured out it was this.
I've now somehow got to inform 10s of thousands of paying customers that they need to uninstall and reinstall the app.
I've now somehow got to inform 10s of thousands of paying customers that they need to uninstall and reinstall the app.
wa...@gmail.com
Join the club -_- I also had to inform 37.000 users...
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
...
da...@afterbanks.com
I have an app with a sharedUserId specified from start. Now I am considering removing the sharedUserId since it is not supported by Google Play. Yes, major f*ck up #2 by Google: http://code.google.com/p/marketbilling/issues/detail?id=90
Ok. So my app uses several SQLite databases. If I remove the sharedUserId, will my app get screwed like described above?
This bug gives me nightmares.
Ok. So my app uses several SQLite databases. If I remove the sharedUserId, will my app get screwed like described above?
This bug gives me nightmares.
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
Would Google plan to solve this problem? or keep it open forever...
jo...@citrusad.com
It's been nearly 9 years guys. The status is "Won't Fix (Not reproducible)" - I would have higher hopes of Android developer team, since this bug has been starred 72 times (and probably affected hundreds if not thousands of developers). Unsubscribing from this, as getting those notifications just reminds me of this sad, very sad bug report. Not cool, Google Android team.
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
cp...@paraty.es
+1 pleaseeee
dg...@dataseekers.es
+1
fj...@dataseekers.es
+1 pleaseeeee!!!!!!!
er...@dataseekers.es
+1
fr...@gmail.com
+1
jm...@dataseekers.es
+1
gi...@etorox.com
+1
vm...@dataseekers.es
+1
na...@google.com
+1
nl...@eryxsoluciones.com.ar
+1
ma...@gmail.com
+1
mc...@sossego.com.br
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
ti...@peekandpoke.com
+1
ma...@gmail.com
+1
ky...@lodgify.com
+1
yo...@backup.affluent.io
+1
We recently went through a project to clean up and remove a bunch of old data. We have multiple instances now where we're using >3TB less than the allotted storage, costing us > $1,000 a month for unused space.
We recently went through a project to clean up and remove a bunch of old data. We have multiple instances now where we're using >3TB less than the allotted storage, costing us > $1,000 a month for unused space.
pa...@spidergap.com
+1
de...@pluscompany.com
+1
Same comment here, using auto scale HDD size put you at risk to have a surge in the storage then you are caught with size increase for nothing. And the workaround consisting of creating a new instance to downsize it maybe conplicated for actual production databases
Thanks
Same comment here, using auto scale HDD size put you at risk to have a surge in the storage then you are caught with size increase for nothing. And the workaround consisting of creating a new instance to downsize it maybe conplicated for actual production databases
Thanks
ab...@amperon.co
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
Paying double as what we should be paying now due to performing a VCAUUM on a very large table.
Paying double as what we should be paying now due to performing a VCAUUM on a very large table.
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
ma...@gmail.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
jo...@cruxinformatics.com
"assigned" 3 years ago...
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
co...@12parsecs.io
This not being addressed or acknowledged has me second guessing my chose to go with GCP as a whole even. I've been building up a POC startup over the last 6 months that I want to start pushing out more widely. Maybe now is the time to avoid GCP's lack of development on basic functionality. "Auto storage increase" shouldn't have been pushed as a feature until scaling back that automatic storage increase was a feature. Or at least marking it as beta if there was a decent workaround to reduce storage.
js...@paloaltonetworks.com
+1 and wow ...
oc...@gmail.com
+1 Thanks
ra...@nibblecomm.com
+1
fa...@gmail.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
sv...@scnmedia.net
+1
ti...@gmail.com
+1
el...@gmail.com
+1, please, resolve this ...
cv...@redapt.com
+1
my...@gmail.com
+1
fi...@teamapt.com
+1... I had a case where my storage grew to 19TB, while we use just 70GB of storage. Now we are paying thousands of dollars for a storage we don't use and won't use for a long time into the future. And as you already know the possible workarounds available will lead to a downtime that we can't afford. This feature is very critical.
ju...@google.com
+1
cp...@paraty.es
After more than 3 years this issue is still open..... you guys are really doing a great job, well done! take it easy! no hurry please!
ca...@leega.com.br
+1
yu...@cohere.io
+1
an...@redso.com.hk
+1
ma...@gmail.com
To indicate you are impacted please don't add a "+1" comment but rather click the star next to the bug id. Thx!
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
ky...@lodgify.com
+1
yu...@gridwise.io
I guess they just want us to keeping paying more. Heroku makes downgrade very easy. Google, shame on you!
de...@gmail.com
+1
gr...@1click2deliver.com
+1
ma...@gmail.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
le...@gmail.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
As a workaround, you can create a new replica of the database with smaller allocated storage. Normally when you do this, GCP requires that you allocate the same amount of storage to the new replica as the current primary. However, if you set it up as an "EXTERNAL" primary then you can trick GCP into bypassing this requirement. It makes sense, since GCP cannot know how big an external database is and therefore can't enforce the storage requirements.
I just did this migrating from a mostly empty 2TB MySQL 5.7 database to a <300GB MySQl 8.0 database. The instructions here will work:
https://cloud.google.com/sql/docs/mysql/replication/replication-from-external
The main difference is that the IP address of the external source database will be the public IP of your current Google Cloud SQL database. You may have to create a public IP temporarily to facilitate the transfer.
After you have a live replica with a smaller footprint, you can promote it and migrate your dependent services to it.
I just did this migrating from a mostly empty 2TB MySQL 5.7 database to a <300GB MySQl 8.0 database. The instructions here will work:
The main difference is that the IP address of the external source database will be the public IP of your current Google Cloud SQL database. You may have to create a public IP temporarily to facilitate the transfer.
After you have a live replica with a smaller footprint, you can promote it and migrate your dependent services to it.
ia...@upskillpeople.com
Comment has been deleted.
ki...@gmail.com
+1
si...@tumelo.com
+1
ma...@gmail.com
@78 That's a good suggestion. However I spent a couple of days trying to get that to work, but synchronization would simply fail with "ERROR" every time, which makes it quite hard to figure out where I was going wrong unfortunately.
sa...@gmail.com
+1
mo...@alphathena.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
fe...@gmail.com
+1
er...@paslists.com
+1 - application error caused increased WAL that has been repaired, but the storage size damage is done.
pe...@emarsys.com
+1
vi...@gmail.com
+1
ga...@gmail.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
en...@globalfishingwatch.org
+1
ju...@globalfishingwatch.org
+1
rd...@gmail.com
+1
al...@globalfishingwatch.org
+1
ki...@gmail.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
mo...@gmail.com
+1
vi...@gmail.com
+1
he...@gmail.com
+1
ni...@gmail.com
+1
dr...@dericktronix.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
ia...@croptix.solutions
+1
om...@gmail.com
+1
jc...@repairpal.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
ki...@gmail.com
+1
ba...@gmail.com
+1
la...@wetranscloud.com
+1
ha...@iggstrom.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
dg...@gmail.com
+1
pa...@lawndoctor.com
+1 -- same issues as others, temporary dev testing ballooned the size and now that the process is mature we can't right-size.
na...@bitqit.com
+1
re...@amperon.co
+1
br...@aylien.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
cs...@monoprix.fr
+1
we...@insert.com.pl
+1, c'mon Google
ag...@gmail.com
+1
ro...@gmail.com
Comment has been deleted.
sa...@veolia.com
+1
as...@gmail.com
Hey google - how about an update?
It's only been a *few years* since the original issue was raised...
Or is this such a cash-cow for you it'll hurt your profits?
+1
It's only been a *few years* since the original issue was raised...
Or is this such a cash-cow for you it'll hurt your profits?
+1
pa...@google.com
+1
va...@kramp.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
al...@gmail.com
+1
se...@piertwo.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
ak...@gmail.com
+1
ra...@gmail.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
pa...@weduu.com
+1
pe...@gmail.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
Comment has been deleted.
ch...@primasoftware.com
+1
sh...@gmail.com
+1
di...@fincatto.com
+1
xm...@gmail.com
I have automatic increments enabled and my storage increased to 5.24 TB, and I only use 1.8 TB.
There is no way for me to decrease, I'm stuck. Because;
It's not possible to export/import sql file since 1.8 TB takes more than a week to export/import, even though I use the highest spec VM.
Google Cloud SQL also doesn't allow me to access mysql data folder, so it's also not possible to export by copying data folder.
I planned to create a read-replica outside of Google Cloud SQL, then switch master to it, then get rid of cloud sql, but its impossible because it takes more than a week to export/import sql file, and Google Cloud only keeps 7 days of mysql bin logs, so new instance can't keep up with the master because of the missing bin logs.
I'M STUCK ON GOOGLE CLOUD SQL.
There is no way for me to decrease, I'm stuck. Because;
It's not possible to export/import sql file since 1.8 TB takes more than a week to export/import, even though I use the highest spec VM.
Google Cloud SQL also doesn't allow me to access mysql data folder, so it's also not possible to export by copying data folder.
I planned to create a read-replica outside of Google Cloud SQL, then switch master to it, then get rid of cloud sql, but its impossible because it takes more than a week to export/import sql file, and Google Cloud only keeps 7 days of mysql bin logs, so new instance can't keep up with the master because of the missing bin logs.
I'M STUCK ON GOOGLE CLOUD SQL.
sh...@gmail.com
F
aj...@google.com
xmripper: while we don't support a managed solution to decrease storage size at this time, we do have a workaround that involves migrating your overprovisioned database to a right-sized Cloud SQL for MySQL instance.
Most customers have had success with Database Migration Service, which offers a seamless managed tool for migrations. We have had success with databases your size and larger:
For very large MySQL databases, we have customers migrating through our external server replication tool using a custom import:
In short, you can use this guide to use third party tools like mydumper and myloader to more rapidly dump and import multi-terabyte databases than would be possible with MySQL's native mysqldump and import utilities.
Best,
Akhil, Cloud SQL for MySQL Product Manager
ma...@cloudomation.com
+1
an...@gmail.com
+1
ra...@snapchat.com
Comment has been deleted.
sh...@gmail.com
+1
ha...@feichtl.com
Comment has been deleted.
ak...@dac.co.jp
+1
da...@tvh.com
+1
bs...@gmail.com
+1 plzzzz
pr...@rtbhouse.com
+1
vl...@aytm.com
328 GB of 871 GB Storage used after import SQL file, WTF?
I started instance with 400GB, space auto-increased to 850, then vacuumed (?) to 328GB
On prem instance uses ~350GB
Why we should pay for unused 400GB of SSD?
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1 and your defaults don't help I feel I was tricked into start the project with 100 GB for nothing
an...@mantel.com
+1
uq...@gmail.com
+1
ja...@atlas.health
+1 pleaseeee
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
an...@gocardless.com
+1
do...@herondata.io
+1
an...@gmail.com
+1
le...@gmail.com
+1
ay...@gocomet.com
+1
ky...@lodgify.com
+1
rt...@gmail.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
I have the same issue - after initial import of the databases the storage capacity is roughly at 200% of what we actually use for data... (after the WAL files have timed out and got removed)
I have the same issue - after initial import of the databases the storage capacity is roughly at 200% of what we actually use for data... (after the WAL files have timed out and got removed)
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
pa...@gmail.com
+1
be...@alphachain.io
+1. it's crazy that this is not basic functionality.
st...@iturn.it
+1
ib...@gmail.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
am...@google.com
+1
sn...@managedmethods.com
+1
yu...@gmail.com
Comment has been deleted.
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
al...@gmail.com
+1
pa...@orbitremit.com
+1
za...@bosslogics.com
+1
br...@technologik.io
+1. How many years and +1's does it take for a basic feature like this to be added? Just moved my projects over from AWS recently, and now I'm second guessing that decision.
mi...@28east.co.za
+1
pa...@gmail.com
+1
ba...@gmail.com
+1
da...@paperflow.com
+1
vk...@anna.money
+1
ma...@proexe.pl
+1
se...@epam.com
+1
sy...@brightedge.com
+1
ge...@tactable.io
+1
ma...@adviqoapi.com
+1
ju...@sneakybox.biz
+1
ma...@megon.com.br
+1
mi...@splitmedialabs.com
+1
dh...@gmail.com
+1
ok...@dto.kemkes.go.id
+1
of...@wilburlabs.com
+1
wp...@nyu.edu
This would be good, but I'd like something even simpler: only billing for used space. Google can clearly tell which space is unused, meaning it doesn't have to take up any actual disk space. If some people need to have a guaranteed buffer for expansion, make that a separate billable item. But we, and I imagine a lot of people, have mild and predictable DB growth that Google can just handle in the normal course of things.
cy...@xin-yin.net
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
cl...@bv.com.br
+1
bu...@kllr.io
+1
lu...@purpleocean.eu
+1
pa...@gmail.com
+1
br...@askgms.com
I'm pretty sure we can all guess why Google won't ever work on this issue. Each and every organization posting here is dramatically overpaying for storage, which is a perk to this particular billing/allocation scheme. The crazy number of hoops required to migrate and reduce allocation isn't a bug - it's a feature of Google's design, and I'd be shocked if they ever changed it since you'll only hit this issue after you're already deeper into the ecosystem.
st...@delcom.nl
+1
zo...@aliz.ai
+1
vl...@gmail.com
Hey guys.
Looks like a lot of people here came into the same trap as I am.
My case was:
- restore dump to SQL instance
- x2 storage used of original (on-prem) instance
- after some time (~1 week) used storage decreased
- but we can't decrease storage of SQL instance.
I found a solution for myself: Just disable "Point-in-time recovery" before restore db and enable it after restore.
In my case difference is 985GB vs 380GB.
Hope it helps.
Looks like a lot of people here came into the same trap as I am.
My case was:
- restore dump to SQL instance
- x2 storage used of original (on-prem) instance
- after some time (~1 week) used storage decreased
- but we can't decrease storage of SQL instance.
I found a solution for myself: Just disable "Point-in-time recovery" before restore db and enable it after restore.
In my case difference is 985GB vs 380GB.
Hope it helps.
br...@askgms.com
@vl...@gmail.com That's a really helpful tip! It's wild that point-in-time recovery can amplify on-DB storage that much, but it makes sense. Next time we restore we'll give that a shot.
la...@gmail.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
sh...@keyvalue.systems
+1
ch...@withtally.com
Would setting up a replica and then promoting the replica to a leader solve this problem with no downtime?
ja...@gmail.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
jc...@gmail.com
+1
cy...@gmail.com
+1
al...@gmail.com
I understand that this isn't simple because if there is free space, the data may be fragmented throughout it. The current workaround of creating an export and then importing it to a new instance also requires updating all the clients to connect to the new instance so it doesn't work in many cases. Is there a way to create a new instance and replace the existing one's connection settings in-place? The important part for me is for a way to do this that doesn't require any work from clients. If there is already a way to do this, please let me know.
For example, AWS allows you to rename the instances so you can change the name of the old instance and rename the new instance to the original name. So the operation does not require any work from clients. Is this possible in GCP? Here are the AWS docs:https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/rds-db-storage-size/
For example, AWS allows you to rename the instances so you can change the name of the old instance and rename the new instance to the original name. So the operation does not require any work from clients. Is this possible in GCP? Here are the AWS docs:
fa...@gmail.com
I think a good solution would be for a replica option to import from a fresh export, so the disk size is correct; not expanded. We could then failover to it, and remove the original, without needing to set up new connections.
th...@gmail.com
I think there are a lot of ways to handle this in an automated way that can easily be implemented on the backend. The current issue is that there is no common solution so each customer is expected to create their own.
br...@plexm.com
+1
ru...@simplify.jobs
We have ~10GB of data and our instance is reserving ~600GB. Attempted a migration using import/exports and ran into hundreds of small issues. Then tried the Database Migration Service that also ran into internal errors.
I hate it here. Why can I just not clone this database with less space reserved? This really does not need to be this insanely complex.
br...@gmail.com
+1, please create the automated common solution for the problem
du...@rouseservices.com
Comment has been deleted.
sh...@yapily.com
+!
ru...@edgeandnode.com
+1
me...@gmail.com
+1
st...@loblaw.ca
+1
la...@gmail.com
+1
mv...@mercadona.es
+1
ad...@deimos.co.za
+1
fi...@embriotech.ch
Definitely +1
ce...@libeo.io
+1
ro...@businessmind.es
five years to implement this... omfg
+1
+1
da...@optimumfleethealth.com
+1
we...@safigen.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
ga...@cappuccino.fm
+1
ai...@google.com
+1 as a major priority for the customer
ma...@gmail.com
+1
yu...@getcruise.com
+1. SSD is one of the biggest cost components for cloud sql.
mo...@gmail.com
+1 it one of the needed feature.
ag...@gmail.com
+1
ek...@stargcp.com
+1
dp...@petabloc.com
+1
am...@google.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
mi...@gmail.com
+1
al...@anymindgroup.com
+1
th...@deliveree.com
+1
jo...@homedepot.com
+1
ro...@gmail.com
+1
mo...@incorta.com
+1
va...@jetbrains.com
+1
ty...@eccogroupusa.com
I have an 11TB disk and 812GB of actual data…we really could use this feature.
wi...@gmail.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
ok...@gmail.com
+1
be...@gmail.com
+ 1
ar...@gmail.com
Comment has been deleted.
19...@gmail.com
+1
ma...@googlemail.com
+1
kr...@gmail.com
I really need that feature +1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
Comment has been deleted.
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
ma...@bendigoadelaide.com.au
+1
ni...@gmail.com
+1
du...@gmail.com
+1
a....@globalgames.net
+1
ot...@teamworkcommerce.com
+1
sh...@palletapp.com
+1
al...@noogata.com
+1
ni...@onxmaps.com
+1
th...@empresometro.com.br
+1
sa...@doit.com
+1
tw...@skydreams.nl
+1
ha...@onemount.com
+1
ka...@pm.me
+1
da...@ciro.io
+1
Please implement this feature!
-- Xoogler
Please implement this feature!
-- Xoogler
tw...@skydreams.nl
Comment has been deleted.
sh...@gmail.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
an...@gmail.com
+1
fe...@smart-pricer.com
+1
ni...@gmail.com
+1
ar...@gmail.com
quite sure this will never be done but +1
ji...@investorhub.com
+1
sc...@whoosh.io
+1
ma...@wises.com.br
+1
ra...@gaida.tech
+1
ma...@gendigital.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
pa...@serveracademy.com
+1
ma...@aniline.io
+1
ja...@tautona.ai
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
am...@joyteam.games
+1
mr...@gmail.com
+1
ma...@wifworld.com
+1
da...@m.co
+1
sn...@gmail.com
Why not just add clone with ability to modify size setting (auto export then import if needed). It is just much work copy all account and setting and moving the ip's.
ja...@gmail.com
+1
ky...@orderlyhealth.com
+1
ri...@mc1global.com
This is a issue since 2017 and GCP own too much money with this problem to solve.
hi...@cloudsales.sa
+1
er...@gmail.com
+1
tr...@gmail.com
+1
lu...@gendigital.com
+1
se...@gmail.com
+1
ba...@gmail.com
+1
ke...@micepadapp.com
+1
i....@redmed.ge
+1
je...@integral.xyz
+1
vi...@rivile.lt
So it's 2024, and Google is still doesn't care that its cloud users constantly have to deal with cases like in the attachment.
wi...@bexrealty.com
This is wasting 1TB of disk space a month on production instances, it's more money for google but it's burning through any good will we might have left.
jo...@synd.io
+1
jo...@cotton.dev
+1
jo...@synd.io
Creating a replica from Cloud SQL, treating it as an external replica worked for me. This was described in
we...@sysmo.com.br Restricted+
Restricted+
Comment has been deleted.
ka...@gmail.com
Are there any updates?
sa...@gmail.com
Not sure if they read this thread anymore but +1
qa...@gmail.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
ad...@hopper.com
+1
ba...@gmail.com
+1
bv...@gocardless.com
+1
se...@gmail.com
+1
va...@google.com
sa...@google.com
+1
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
Comment has been deleted.
te...@gmail.com
This issue's 7th birthday is coming up. Any ideas what to get it?
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]>
+1
ku...@google.com
ju...@clever.gy
+1
ma...@ingka.ikea.com
+1
ma...@gmail.com
+1
fr...@ggl.life
+1
sg...@google.com
Hi @gcppit-team@google.com Team -
Since this request was raised for years now, do we have any progress or updates on this feature request. Thank you in advance.
va...@gmail.com
Plus effin one
tm...@gmail.com
+1 just got bitten by this and am unimpressed with the lack of reasonable solutions.
fb...@gmail.com
+1
ad...@cross-entropy.com
+100
ma...@duinker.eu
+1
ko...@septeni-incubate.co.jp
+1
ha...@donuts.ne.jp
+1
ja...@simplified.co
+1
pc...@mediarithmics.com
+1
pr...@gmail.com
+1 this is costing us a lot of pain and $$
sh...@adevinta.com
+1 This is costing us 500$ per day, this is really a issue with GCP !!
ga...@ford.com
+1
pi...@gmail.com
+1
ja...@cart.com
---> P2 since 2017 ---- 1st upvote in 2025 ---- Its making them $$$ to do NOTHING ---- IssueTracker is where concerns go to be buried in the sands of time...
ri...@mc1global.com
+1
jj...@juli.co
+1
da...@cuyna.es
+1
da...@zoomerang.app
+1
vk...@openprovider.ru
+1
sh...@iotex.io
why the issue still exist for already 7 years?
Description