My problem is that I can't use R-studio at my work place as the IT does not support it . I want to use R and R-studio that installed on my personnel laptop on my company laptop ( using a modern browser which is behind firewall ) . Some of the options I am thinking of two two things
should I need to build a docker for R and R-studio (I see base images are already available) , I am mostly interested in basic R , Dplyr (haven ,xporter, and Reticulate ) packages .
Should I have to use a binder . I am not technical person and my programming skills are very limited can any one suggest me way .
What exactly are the difference between using Docker option vs Binder ?
I know I can use R-Studio online and get my work done but with the new paid account I am running out of project hours and very slow sometimes . Thanks in advance
Here are some examples beyond the modern RStudio MyBinder example:
https://github.com/fomightez/pythonista_skewedf
https://github.com/fomightez/r_phylogenetics_worshop
https://github.com/fomightez/chapter7/tree/master/binder
The modern RStudio MyBinder example has been set as a template on GitHub so you can use
The first one is for a special use of a package not on conda. And I started that one from square one.
The other two were converted from content by others to aid in making them Binder-ready.
You essentially list everything you need from conda in the environment.yml along with the appropriate channels. If you need special stuff not on conda, you need the other configuration files included there.
Getting everything working can take some iterations on adding things, letting the image get built, and testing your libraries are available. Although you seem to think your situation is not overly complex.
The binder launch badges you see are just images where you modify the URL to point the MyBinder federation site at your repository. Look at the URL and you should see the pattern where you put studio at the end of the URL pointing at your repo. The form at MyBinder.org site can help with this; however, most often it is easier to just adapt a working launch badge's code copied from elsewhere. The form isn't set up at this time for making the URLs for launching to RStudio.
Download anything useful your create in a running session. The sessions timeout after 10 minutes, although RStudio usually keeps them active.
Lack of Persistence and limited memory, storage, & power can be drawbacks. The inherent reproducibility and portability are advantages.
MyBinder.org doesn't work with private repos. If you have code you don't want to share, you can upload it to the temporary session, using the repo for specifying the environment. You could host a private binderhub that does allow the use of private git repositories; however, that is probably overkill for your use case and exceed your ability level at this time.
GitHub isn't the only place to host repositories that can be pointed at the MyBinder system. If you go to the MyBinder.org page and click where it says 'GitHub' on the left side of the top line of the form, you can see a list of the sources at which you can host a repository and point the system to build an image and launch a container with that specified image.
Building the image from a source repository takes some minutes the first time. Once the image is built though on the service, launch is typically less than 30 seconds. Each time you make a change on the source repo, a build is necessary. Some changes don't cause the new build to be as long as the initial one as some optimizing is done to only build what is necessary after a change. Keep in mind there are several members of the federation around the workd and if traffic on the internet gets sent to where the built image isn't yet available, it will be built from scratch again first.
The Holepunch project is out there to offer some help for users working in the R ecosystem; however, with the R-Conda system that is now integrated into MyBinder it is pretty much as easy to do it the way I described. Last I knew, the Holepunch route makes a Dockerfile that isn't as easy to troubleshoot as using the current the R-Conda system route. Dockerfiles are essentially a last ditch configuration file that MyBinder can handle. The reason being the other configuration files are much easier and don't require knowing Dockerfile syntax. MyBinder aims to offer the ability to take advantage of Docker offering containers with a specified environment without users needing to know anything about Docker.
There is a Binder Help category for posting to get help at the Jupyter Discourse Forum. Some other examples of posts already there may help you troubleshoot.
Notice of a common pitfall
Most of the the configuration files for making a repository Binder-ready are simply text and can be edited right in the GitHub browser interface, without need to git or even cloning the repo locally.
Last I knew, there are two exceptions to this. The postBuild and start configuration files have settings that allow them to be run as scripts and these get altered in a way they no longer work if you edit them via the GitHub browser interface. (This was my experience when last I tried. Your mileage may vary or things may have changed now.) To edit those, you have to have git available on a system you have and pull one from some other source. Then edit that on your machine that has git working & add it your repo and push it back up from your local computer.
(If this is a problem, you can post in the Jupyter Discourse Forum Binder help category and you and I could coordinate where I fork and edit those files in your repo to your specifications and then make a pull request to update your source of the fork with those changes.)
If you are using Jupyter notebooks extensively then it may make sense to use Binder
But if you simply want to use R and Rstudio, then all you need is docker. A good resource is
https://github.com/rocker-org/rocker
When I apply the dotnet publish command I see three folders created in the bin folder: Debug, Release, and MCD.
What exactly is the MCD configuration, and what is this configuration for?
This is likely a result of the environment variable Platform=MCD existing, as it often will on a machine configured by HP.
See this article and this github discussion for more detail:
The issue you are seeing might be related to the way HP machines are setup -- they have an environment variable called Platform, set to MCD which is why you are seeing this...
If it is causing a problem, there is nothing wrong with removing this variable as far as I know. This blog post from Chapman World agrees. And if it did break something it's easy to put the variable back. So the risk is small.
Alternatively, you could safely ignore or discard the unwanted build output now that you know its origin.
I'm trying to learn about the guts of Unix right now, mostly through experimentation. When I was first starting, I found myself looking through forum posts, copying and pasting bash code. When I broke something, I often had to do a fresh install because I couldn't remember what exactly I had changed where. Now, the simple solution is to record a log of all the system files I've changed and keep original copies of all the default files so I can revert if necessary. It would be great if there was a cl tool which did this for me automatically. It would be even greater if I could step back through changes. Basically, I'm looking to version control my entire OS.
Does anything like this exist? I would also accept alternative strategies for spelunking through Unix without causing permanent damage if you think I'm going about this wrong.
Using debian if it matters.
I want to pick up the rc.boot script file & modify something in AIX system.
How to find it out? Thanks
I would suggest not to modify the rc.boot script on AIX.
Not very many services are started at that point in the boot process - very easy to introduce something that may result in the system not fully booting.
May be replaced by updates from IBM without warning - thus wiping out your changes.
Follow the method from comp.unix.aix . This set-up or something similar to it has been used at all the AIX shops I have worked at over the last 20 years. I currently use this on 50+ servers (except it is called rc.server instead of rc.local). Placing it in the /etc/inittab as illustrated (after rc.nfs) ensures that NFS services are up and running when your script(s) are run.
Cheers
I Googled rc.boot and the first result was documentation from IBM.
It is located at /sbin/rc.boot.
Assume that I set up an automatic nightly build. What artifacts of the build should I save?
For example:
Input source code
output binaries
Also, how long should I save them, and where?
Do your answers change if I do Continuous Integration?
You shouldn't save anything for the sake of saving it. you should save it because you need it (i.e., QA uses nightly builds to test). At which point, "how long to save it" becomes however long QA wants them.
i wouldn't "save" source code so much as tag/label it. I don't know what source control you're using, but tagging is trivial (performance & disk space) for any quality source control system. Once your build is tagged, unless you need binaries, there really isn't any benefit to just having them around because you can simply re-compile when necessary from source.
Most CI tools let you tag on each successful build. This can become problematic for some systems as you can easily have 100+ tags a day. For such cases I recommend still running a nightly build and only tagging that.
Here are some artifacts/information that I'm used to keep at each build:
The tag name of the snapshot you are building (tag and do a clean checkout before you build)
The build scripts themselfs or their version number (if you treat them as a separate project with its own version control)
The output of the build script: logs and final product
A snapshot of your environment:
compiler version
build tool version
libraries and dll/libs versions
database version (client & server)
ide version
script interpreter version
OS version
source control version (client and server)
versions of other tools used in the process and everything else that might influence the content of your build products. I usually do this with a script that queries all this information and logs it to a text file that should be stored with the other build artifacts.
Ask yourself this question: "if something destroys entirely my build/development environment what information would I need to create a new one so I can redo my build #6547 and end up with the exact same result I got the first time?"
Your answer is what you should keep at each build and it will be a subset or superset of the things I already mentioned.
You can store everything in your SCM (I'd recommend a separate repository), but in this case your question on how long you should keep the items looses sense. Or you should store it to zipped folders or burn a cd/dvd with the build result and artifacts. Whatever you choose, have a backup copy.
You should store them as long as you might need them. How long, will depend on your development team pace and your release cycle.
And no, I don't think it changes if you do continous integration.
This isn't a direct answer to your question, but don't forget to version control the nightly build setup itself. When the project structure changes, you may have to change the build process, which will break older builds from that point on.
In addition to the binaries as everyone else has mentioned I would recomend setting up a symbol server and a source server and making sure you get the correct information out and into those. It will aid in debugging tremendously.
We save the binaries, stripped and unstripped (so we have the exactly same binary, once with and once without debug symbols). Further we build everything twice, once with debug output enabled and once without (again, stripped and unstripped, so every build result in 4 binaries). The build is stored to a directory according to SVN revision number. That way we can always retain the source from the SVN repository by simply checking out this very revision (that way the source is archived as well).
A surprising one I learned about recently: If you're in an environment that might be audited you'll want to save all the output of your build, the script output, the compiler output, etc.
That's the only way you can verify your compiler settings, build steps, etc.
Also, how long to save them for, and where to save them?
Save them until you know that build won't be going to production, iow as long as you have the compiled bits around.
One logical place to save them is your SCM system. Another option is to use a tool that will automatically save them for you, like AnthillPro and its ilk.
We're doing something close to "embedded" development here, and I can tell you what we save:
the SVN revision number and timestamp, as well as the machine it was built on and by whom (also burned into the build binaries)
a full build log, showing whether it was a full/incremental build, any interesting (STDERR) output the data baking tools produced, a list of files compiled and any compiler warnings (this compresses very well, being text)
the actual binaries (for anywhere from 1-8 build configurations)
files produced as a side effect of linking: a linker command file, address map, and a sort of "manifest" file indicating what was burned into the final binaries (CRC and size for each), as well as the debugging database (.pdb equivalent)
We also mail out the result of running some tools over the "side-effect" files to interested users. We don't actually archive these since we can reproduce them later, but these reports include:
total and delta of filesystem size, broken down by file type and/or directory
total and delta of code section sizes (.text, .data, .rodata, .bss, .sinit, etc)
When we have unit tests or functional tests (e.g. smoke tests) running, those results show up in the build log.
We've not thrown out anything yet -- given, our target builds usually end up at ~16 or 32 MiB per configuration, and they're fairly compressible.
We do keep uncompressed copies of the binaries around for 1 week for ease of access; after that we keep only the lightly compressed version. About once a month we have a script that extracts each .zip that the build process produces and 7-zips a whole month of build outputs together (which takes advantage of only having small differences per build).
An average day might have a dozen or two builds per project... The buildserver wakes up about every 5 minutes to check for relevant differences and builds. A full .7z on a large very active project for one month might be 7-10GiB, but it's certainly affordable.
For the most part, we've been able to diagnose everything this way. Occasionally there's a hiccup on the buildsystem and a file isn't actually a the revision it's supposed to be when a build happens, but there's usually enough evidence of this in the logs. Sometimes we have to dig out a tool that understands the debugging database format and feed it a few addresses to diagnose a crash (we have automatic stackdumps built into the product). But usually all the information needed is there.
We haven't had to crack the .7z archives yet, to mention. But we have the info there, and I have some interesting ideas on how to mine bits of useful data from it.
Save what can't be reproduced easily. I work on FPGAs where only the FPGA team have the tools and some cores (libraries) of the design are licensed to compile on only one machine. So we save the output bitstreams. But try to check them over one another rather than with a date/time/version stamp.
Save as in check in to source code control or just on disk? Save nothing to source code control. All derived files should be visible in the file system and available to developers. Don't checkin binaries, code generated from XML files, message digests etc. A separate packaging step will make these end products available. As you have the change number you can always reproduce the build if necessary assuming of course everything you need to do a build is completely in the tree and is available to all builds by syncing.
I would save your built binaries for exactly as long as they have a chance to go into production or be used by some other team (like a QA group). Once something has left production, what you do with it can vary a lot. For a lot of teams, they'll keep just their most recent prior build around (for rollback) and otherwise discard their builds.
Others have regulatory requirements to keep anything that went into production around for as long as seven years (banks). If you are a product company, I'd keep around any binary a customer might have installed in case a tech support guy wants to install the same version.