For some reason, my unix system crashes quite often, and IT has been for some reason less helpful here.
I would like to explore alternatives to ensure there is minimal impact on my work.
Is there any way, I can save the current state of my system across desktops.
The minimum I need is, For each desktop - save what terminals are open and their current dir and other open apps (like text editors).
I would also like restore these terminals, apps with as less effort as possible.
PS: Apologies if this is noob query - I am geek from a different planet (not S/W)
Related
I am about to start a new Sass project where the work will need to be carried out from multiple physical locations on different machines including laptops.
The 1st location is a standard setup with compass etc all running ok.
The second again has compass setup but cannot be networked as such to the first.
The third would be laptops etc.
So the question:
What is the best way to work access the same sass file from all 3 locations ( different times) without carrying a stick or drive around ?
Google drive ?
ftp down load at each?
Also concerned that someone may not get on to the latest version before modifying it.
When any sort of code is going to be worked on in multiple locations, it's always best to use some sort of version control system. Ideally, any time any code is being done, it should use a version control system, but I'll overlook that.
A version control system (VCS) will allow you to make changes in one place, store them in a central place, and then get those changes on other machines. It will also mean you can check what changes were made when, and find what caused something to break a little easier.
There's a multitude of different options out there, and it comes down to whether or not you want to host your own server, use a generally available one, pay a small amount each month to keep servers private etc.
The obvious candidate (being the seemingly current favourite) would be to use git, where you can have your own server or use something like github. But there's also oter options including (but not limited to):
CVS
SVN
Mercurial
Which option you go for will depend on your preference really.
If you are the only one working on the code and don't care much about safety, which versioning systems provide, you can very easily put your project on a Dropbox and set desktop application to sync only selected directories, ignoring others.
I use this method even though I use Git, just because sometimes I just want to not commit changes and continue working on them in different location. I fire up other computer and I am right where I left everything (including text editor settings, plugins, etc.)
Alfresco provides a CIFS connector so it can act just a normal file-server in your intranet.
Compared with a "normal" (windows/samba) based fileserver, certain operations can really hurt the system, e.g. listing a folder with a few thousand files using windows explorer. Not quite sure, but I think permission checking is the primary reason for this case. Anyways, now assume you have a big filesystem hierarchy exposed and many users using CIFS, stressing the system, effectively "knocking it down".
What is the suggested approach to scale / improve performance ?
In my experience Windows Explorer is part of the CIFS performance issue. I don't have exact numbers, but I remember working on an instance with roughly 500GB data, mostly composed of small images and a few texts in a not well balanced folder tree, for which listing a folder with a thousand children was taking in Explorer around a minute to display. The same operation was taking around 3s on Chrome browser.
We never had time to investigate the issue thoroughly, but we saw an impressive amount of traffic generated by Explorer due to prefetch of information of the subfolders of the currently open folder.
Been revisiting the issue a little, and I guess the best answer I can give for now is: Tweak the cache(s).
I used a 5k children space, default cache values and benchmarked executing "ls -alrt" on the CIFS mount running alfresco 4.0.d.
The first execution took roughly two minutes bombarding the (lightning fast) mysql database with approx 200k queries.
The second execution took "only" around 40 seconds, but the amount of queries did not change significantly.
Increasing the CIFS fileinfo cache, I got the second time down to 30 seconds, but I still see 160k DB queries firing. I'm fairly sure this lions share has to do with permissions/ACLs and it should be possible improve the situation a lot.
PS: Windows Explorer definitely behaves a little unexpected, but I cannot confirm that it makes a significant difference regarding user experience.
PPS: https://issues.alfresco.com/jira/browse/ALFCOM-2951
PPPS: I'll look into this further when I find the time - should be this year. ;)
Update: The massive amount of queries is no permission issue.
Permission checks definitely IS a part of the problem. I can't link to anything specific, but browsing alfresco forums and the net for the last few years I've learned that permissions can hurt the performance.
I've read (and experienced) in several scenarios that alfresco spaces with large numbers of children (1000+) can be painfully slow. One part you noticed yourself: it takes a while to go through 100-200k queries. But hook up something into alfresco to watch what's it doing and you'll see that massive amounts of time go on serialization/deserialization (e.g.webscripts for share) and also node traversal (hence the thousands of queries and averages of 400-500 qps when nobody is logged on).
So you're on the right way with your cache optimizations.
Do you have dedicated hardware for your installation? I've had big issues with performance, but I've moved the MySQL server to a separate box (server-grade hardware - 4 cores, 8GB ram, SSD for myqsl server and SAS for tomcat server etc) and I gained a lot. So, get on with begging for the new hardware too :)
I think you're on the right path here.
I would like some idea about how rsync compares to SyncML/Funambol, especially when it comes to bandwidth, sync over unstable network and multiple clients to one server.
This is to sync several mobile devices with a directory structure of growing text-files. (Se we essentially want as much as possible on the server, and inconsistent files is not really a problem, also we know where changes originates).
So far, it seems Funambol doesn't compress, doesn't handle partial updates, and it is difficult to handle interruptions in a file-transfer.
I know rsync doesn't go through the server, but I don't quite see how that is a disadvantage.
Olav,
rsync can:
Compress the data (as you said) - thus gaining better performances over the net.
Synchronize only the newest data within each file - thus, once again, saving time.
Can be ran by multiple users at the same time. It's a very basic backup software behavior.
And one of my favorites: work over a secure shell.
You might want to check Rsyncrypto, for compressing and encrypting at the same time.
Dotan
We have 4 different environments:
Staging
Dev
User Acceptance
Live
We use TFS, pull down the latest code and code away.
When they finish a feature, the developers individually upload their changes to Staging. If the site is stable (determined by really loose testing), we upload changes to Dev, then UserAcceptance and then live.
We are not using builds/tags in our source control at all.
What should I tell management? They don't seem to think there is an issue as far as I can tell.
If it would be good for you, you could become the Continuous Integration champion of your company. You could do some research on a good process for CI with TFS, write up a proposed solution, evangelize it to your fellow developers and direct managers, revise it with their input and pitch it to management. Or you could just sit there and do nothing.
I've been in management for a long time. I always appreciate someone who identifies an issue and proposes a well thought-out solution.
Whose management? And how far removed are they from you?
I.e. If you are just a pleb developer and your managers are the senior developers then find another job. If you are a Senior developer and your managers are the CIO types, i.e. actually running the business... then it is your job to change it.
Tell them that if you were using a key feature of very expensive software they spent a lot of money on, it would be trivial to tell what code got pushed out when. That would mean in the event of a subtle bug getting introduced that gets passed user acceptance testing, it would be a matter of diffing the two versions to figure out what changed.
One of the most important parts of using TAGS is so you can rollback to a specific point in time. Think of it as an image backup. If something bad gets deployed you can safely assume you can "roll" back to a previous working version.
Also, developers can quickly grab a TAG (dev, prod or whatever) and deploy to their development PC...a feature I use all the time to debug production problems.
So you need someone to tell the other developers that they must label their code every time a build is done and increment a version counter. Why can't you do that?
You also need to tell management that you believe the level of testing done is not sufficient. This is not a unique problem for an organisation and they'll probably say they already know. No harm in mentioning it though rather than waiting for a major problem to arrive.
As far as individuals doing builds or automated build processes this depends on whether you really need this based on how many developers there are and how often you do builds.
What is the problem? As you said, you can't tell if management see the problem. Perhaps they don't! Tell them what you see as the current problem and what you would recommend to fix the problem. The problem has to of the nature of "our current process has failed 3 out of 10 times and implementing this new process would reduce those failures to 1 out of 10 times".
Management needs to see improvements in terms of: reduced costs, icreased profits, reduced time, reduced use of resources. "Because it's widely used best practice" isn't going to be enough. Neither is, "because it makes my job easier".
Management often isn't aware of a problem because everyone is too afraid to say anything or assumes they can't possibly fail to see the problem. But your world is a different world than theirs.
I see at least two big problems:
1) Developers loading changes up themselves. All changes should come from source control. Do you encounter times where someone made a change that went to production but never got into source control and then was accidentally removed on the next deploy? How much time (money) was spent trying to figure out what went wrong there?
2) Lack of a clear promotion model. It seems like you guys are moving changes between environments rather than "builds". The key distinction is that if two changes work great in UAT because of how they interact, if only one change is promoted to production it could break there. Promoting consistent code - whether by labeling it or by just zipping up the whole web application and promoting the zip file - should cause fewer problems.
I work on the continuous integration and deployment solution, AnthillPro. How we address this with TFS is to retrieve the new code from TFS based on a date-time stamp (of when someone pressed the "Deliver to Stage" button).
This gives you most (all?) the traceability you would have of using tags, without actually having to go around tagging things. The system just records the time stamp, and every push of the code through the testing environments is tied to a known snapshot of code. We also have customers who lay down tags as part of the build process. As the first poster mentioned - CI is a good thing - less work, more traceability.
If you already have TFS, then you are almost there.
The place I'm at was using TFS for source control only. We have a similar setup with Dev/Stage/Prod. I took it upon myself to get a build server installed. Once that was done I added in the ability to auto deploy to dev for one of my projects and told a couple of the other guys about it. Initially the reception was luke warm.
Later I added TFS Deployer to the mix and have it set to auto deploy the good dev build to stage.
During this time the main group of developers were constantly fighting the "Did you get latest before deploying to Stage or Production?" questions; my stuff was working without a hitch. Believe me, management and the other devs noticed.
Now (6 months into it), we have a written rule that you aren't even allowed to use the Publish command in visual studio. EVERYTHING goes through the CI build and deployments. When moving to prod, our production group pulls the appropriate copy off of the build server. I even trained our QA group on how to do web testing and we're slowly integrating automated tests into the whole shebang.
The point of this ramble is that it took awhile. But more importantly it only happened because I was willing to just run with it and show results.
I suggest you do the same. Start using it, then show the benefits to get everyone else on board.
I'm planning on doing more coding from home but in order to do so, I need to be able to edit files on a Samba drive on our dev server. The problem I've run into with several editors is that the network latency causes the editor to lock up for long periods of time (Eclipse, TextMate). Some editors cope with this a lot better than others, but are there any file system or other tweaks I can make to minimize the impact of lag?
A few additional points:
There's a policy against having company data on personal machines, so I'd like to avoid checking out the code locally.
The mount is over a PPTP VPN connection.
Mounting to Linux or OS X client
Use a source control system — Subversion, Perforce, Git, Mercurial, Bazaar, etc. — so you're never editing code on a shared server. Instead you should be editing a local work area and committing changes to a repository located on the network.
Also, convince your company to adapt their policy such that company code is allowed on personal machines if it's on an encrypted volume. Encrypted disk images that you can use for this are trivial to create using Disk Utility, and can use strong cryptography. You can get even more security by not storing your encryption passphrase in your keychain, and instead typing it every time you mount the encrypted volume; this means that even if your local user account is compromised, as long as you don't have the volume mounted, nobody else will be able to mount it.
I did this all the time when I was consulting and none of my clients — some of whom had similar rules about company code — ever had a problem with it once I explained how things worked. (I think some of them even started using encrypted disk images even within their offices.)
Remate plugin simply disables this dreadful refresh-on-focus feature.
Download, unpack, doubleclick and choose "Disable Refresh on Regaining Focus" from "Window" menu (you can refresh manually by right-clicking project in drawer). Voila!
If you are accessing the data from your personal computer, it is in your RAM, so we will assume that you just can't store it on your hard drive, floppy, USB stick, etc.
Your solution is a RAM drive. Copy the files you need to edit there using whatever method you prefer (I would suggest source control) and then you can edit them without lag. When you are done commit them back to the server.
As was pointed out your editor may be caching changes to your temp directory, or maybe even your swap file (if it is in memory, then it can get swapped out). The solution to that is get a much larger RAM drive and run a Virtual Machine in the RAM drive. Not sure what OS you are running, but you can get a pretty slim install of most OS's if all you are doing is editing source code.
If you don't have enough RAM, then get a Gigabyte i-RAM solid state drive and remove the battery, that way it will lose everything when you power down.
Set your VMWare to not allow the OS to swap any of the virtual machine. Keep a baseline VM on your hard drive and copy it to your RAM drive before booting it up. Then you can use the hard drive in the VM like a hard drive, even though it is RAM.
Might be a good idea to run a secure erase on your RAM drive before powering down. Also keep in mind that they have found if you super cool a RAM chip before removing it from a functioning computer, and place it in a new computer quick enough, the data may still be intact.
I guess it all comes down to how detailed that policy is, and how it is interpreted.
Good luck!
Short answer: you can do no trick. CIFS is really geared towards LAN with a reasonably calm trafic, so you have zero chance to not suffer intermittent lag accessing a share through a VPN. The editor at some point needs to access the file in blocking IO, because it makes no real sense to do otherwise.
You could switch editor and use Emacs + TRAMP which is geared to work on remote files.