I need to run 4 background gobs for cleaning temp files and proccessing some files. I have chosen Quart.net for the job.
I have a Asp.Net website, which accepts uploading files that will be processed by the Quartz Jobs at night.
First i thought about making a console application for the Quartz jobs, keeping the website and the jobs totally decoupled.
But then, i've seen that i will need some config values (connectionstring and paths to files) that are on the asp.net web.config. So a question came to my mind:
Should i run the jobs through the asp.net instance or should i do this on a console application?
Furthermore, i want that when the Quartz jobs start running, the website show a special page (like "We are processing the files...).
What i care the most is the performance, i don't want the website to be affected by the Quartz jobs, neither the jobs' performance affected by the website.
So, what should i do? Have you done something like this and can give me an advice?
Should i run the jobs through the asp.net instance or should i do this on a console application?
If you want to have to manually trigger them each night, sure. But a console application using the host system's task scheduler seems like a more automated solution. A web application is more of a request/response system, it's not really suited for periodic or long-running actions. Scheduling some sort of background operation on the host, such as a scheduled console application or a windows service, would serve that purpose better.
Note that if it truly needs to be unattended and run even when there's nobody logged in to the server console, a windows service may be a more ideal approach than a console application.
i've seen that i will need some config values (connectionstring and paths to files) that are on the asp.net web.config
Console application have App.config files which serve the same purpose. You can use that.
i want that when the Quartz jobs start running, the website show a special page
You definitely want to keep the two de-coupled. But you may be able to accomplish this easily enough. Maybe have some sort of status flag in the database which indicates if any particular record is "currently being processed". The website can simply look for any records with that flag when a page loads and display that message.
There are likely a couple of different ways to synchronize status here, it doesn't really matter what you choose. What does matter is that the systems remain decoupled and that any status which is statically persisted is handled somewhat carefully to avoid an errant process from leaving an incorrect status. (For example, a background task sets a status of "processing" and then fails in some way. The website would forever indicate that it's processing.)
Related
When I develop and update files on production server with PHP I just copy the files on the fly and everything seems to work without interrupting the server.
But if I am to update the code on the Go server and application and would need to kill the server, copy the src files to the server, run go install, and then start the server, this would interrupt the service, and if I do this quite often then it is going to look very bad for my users of the service.
How can I update files without the downtime when using Go with Go's http server?
PHP is an interpreted language, which means you provide your code in source format and the PHP interpreter will read it and execute it (it may create a more compact binary form so that it doesn't have to analyze the source again when needed).
Go is a compiled language, it compiles into a native executable binary; going further it is statically linked which means every code and library your app is referring to is compiled and linked when the executable is created. This implies you can't just "drop-in" new go modules into a running application.
You have to stop your running application and start the new version. You can however minimize the downtime: only stop the running application when the new version of the executable is already created and ready to be run. You may choose to compile it on a remote machine and upload the binary to the server, or upload the source and compile it on the server, it doesn't matter.
With this you could decrease the downtime to a maximum of few seconds, which your users won't notice. Also you shouldn't update in every hour, you can't really achieve significant updates in just an hour of coding. You could schedule updates daily (or even less frequently), and you could schedule them for hours when your traffic is low.
If even a few seconds downtime is not acceptable to you, then you should look for platforms which handle this for you automatically without any downtime. Check out Google App Engine - Go for example.
The grace library will allow you to do graceful restarts without annoyance for your users: https://github.com/facebookgo/grace
Yet in my experience restarting Go applications is so quick, unless you have an high traffic website it won't cause any trouble.
First of all, don't do it in that order. Copy and install first. Then you could stop the old process and run the new one.
If you run multiple instances of your app, then you can do a rolling update, so that when you bounce one server, the other ones are still serving. A similar approach is to do blue-green deployments, which has the advantage that the code your active cluster is running is always homogeneous (whereas during a rolling deploy, you'll have a mixture until they've all rolled), and you can also do a blue-green deployment where you normally have only one instance of your app (whereas rolling requires more than one). It does however require you to have double the instances during the blue-green switch.
One thing you'll want to take into consideration is any in-flight requests -- you may want to make sure that in-flight requests continue to go to old-code servers until their finished.
You can also look into Platform-as-a-Service solutions, that can automate a lot of this stuff for you, plus a whole lot more. That way you're not ssh'ing into production servers and copying files around manually. The 12 Factor App principles are always a good place to start when thinking about ops.
I am working on a ASP.net MVC4 project where a same project needs to be deployed to many clients on daily basis, each client will have its own domain / sub domain and a separate app pool and db (MSSSQL).
Doing each deployment manually could take at least 1-2 hours if everything goes well. Is there anyway using which I can do this in some automated way?
Moreover, we also need to update all of the apps when a new version is released.. may be one by one or all of them at same time. However, doing this manually could take weeks and once we have more clients then it will not possible doing this update manually.
The update involves, suspending app for some time, taking a full backup of files and db, update application code/ files in app folder, upgrade db with a script and then start app, doing some diagnosis script to check if update was successful or not, if not we need to check what went wrong?
How can we automate this updates? Any idea would be great on how to approach this issue.
As a developer for BuildMaster, I can say that this scenario, known as the "Core Version" pattern, is a common one. If you're OK with a paid solution, you can setup your deployment plans within the tool that do exactly what you described.
As a more concrete example, we experience this exact situation in a slightly different way. BuildMaster has a set of 60+ extensions that rely on a specific SDK version. In our recent 4.0 release, we had to re-deploy every extension because of breaking API changes within the SDK. This is essentially equivalent to having a bunch of customers and deploying to them all at once. We have set up our deployment plans such that any time we create a new release of the SDK application, we have the option to set a variable that says to build every extension that relies on the SDK:
In BuildMaster, the idea is to promote a build (i.e. an immutable object that travels through various environments like Dev, Test, Staging, Prod) to its final environment (where it becomes the deployed build for the release). In your case, this would be pushing your MVC application to its final environment, and that would then trigger the deployments of all dependent applications (i.e. your customers' instances of your application). For our SDK, the plan looks like this:
For your scenario, you would only need the single action, "Promote Build". As I mentioned before, any dependents would then be promoted to their final environments, so all your customer deployments would kick off once that action is run during deployment. As an example, our Azure extension's deployment plan for its final environment looks like this (internal URLs redacted):
You may have noticed that these plans are marked "Shared", which means every extension we have has the exact same deployment plan, but utilizes different variables to handle the minor differences like names, paths, etc.
Since this is such an enormous topic I could go on for ages, but I think that should be sufficient for your use-case if you wanted to try it out.
There are others but you could setup Team Server Foundation to deploy automated builds.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff650529.aspx
I find the easiest way to do this from an MVC project is to create a publish profile.
This is done by right-clicking your project selecting publish and then configuring it to your needs.
Then from TFS you create a new build definition, this kicks of a wizard which takes you through it.
There are quite a few options which would be too long to go into for every scenario.
The main change I usually find the most important is to set an MSBuild Argument to deploy with the publish profile.
This can be found at Process > Advanced > MSBuild Arguments.
Once this is configured correctly it's a simple case of right-clicking and queue new build to build and deploy.
You wil need different PublishProfile/Build configuration per deployment environment.
For backups I use a powershell script which can be called manually or from TFS.
You also have a drop folder in TFS which keeps a backup of x many releases.
The datbases are automatically configured via Sql server to backup, TBH I didn't set that up it was a DB admin guy who is also involved with releases.
From a dev testing side I use jMeter (http://jmeter.apache.org/) to run some automated scripts that check that users can login and view certain screens, just to confirm nothing major has gone wrong. However there is usually a testing team to run more detailed tests, again not setup by me.
All of the above will probably take you sometime to setup but in the long run it will literally save you weeks of time over a year.
A free alternative to TFS is http://www.cruisecontrolnet.org/, I have used this in the past too and is pretty good.
You can automate your .Net deployments with Beanstalk, which will give you a way to trigger deployments with a single click, watch progress, manage permissions and see history of deployments. Check out this guide on the topic:
http://guides.beanstalkapp.com/deployments/deploy-dotnet.html
I hope you will find it useful.
P.S. - I work at Beanstalk.
A couple of questions:
1) How can I update a Classic ASP website/page without interrupting service (users getting an error or service unavailable message) or shutting the website down temporarily?
2) When updating/restoring a MSSQL DB via SQL Server Management Studio, will the website users get an error message?
Thanks in advance.
A smart practice is to use at least one separate development environment with the same setup as your production environment and debug all changes there to ensure that they work. Once your entire site is running and tested on the other, identical environment to your production environment, you should be able to simply move the files and they should work in production. This model being effective is dependent on actually being able to maintain environments as close to identical to each other as possible.
When updating/restoring a MSSQL DB
Be careful with your terminology; UPDATE and RESTORE are two very different commands.
If the database is locked by the changes being made, then it will be inaccessible to users and may cause error messages depending on your IIS and code setup. Scheduling a maintenance period and blocking user access to any pages that access the database is will help avoid messy errors and revealing any information about your infrastructure while the changes are being made.
It seems like you might want to do some basic research on development and databases both in order to make sure you understand what you're doing and can cover all of your bases. Looking up commands like RESTORE and UPDATE and using them correctly is crucial.
For example, when you rewrite one or more of your website files
via FTP, in that very moment when rewriting is taking place,
users will get a 500 Service Unavailable error. How can I avoid this?
This really shouldn't happen, although you could upload the files to a different folder, avoiding any delay there, and sync the files with a diff tool such as Winmerge (also helping you keep track of changes and revert quickly) when done uploading.
I don't know much about the .Net environment, so my first idea was to just write a console app that scans the folder for new content, and then emails alerts out. Then put the .exe as a scheduled task on the server, executing every few minutes. This seems pretty archaic to me though. Is there a more elegant way to do this for my website?
No matter what type of application you choose the way to get notifications about folder changes in .NET is through the FileSystemWatcher class. A good approach would be to create a Windows Service which will run in background and listen for notifications.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.io.filesystemwatcher.aspx
You can use the FileSystemWatcher. Create a Windows Service that constantly runs, and attach an Event to the Watcher to send out emails.
Note that this reports every change, sometimes multiple ones (e.g., moving a file is a delete and create I think), so you may want to limit the number of emails you sent. Experiment a bit before sending hundreds of emails or so - been there, done that :)
To deploy a new version of our website we do the following:
Zip up the new code, and upload it to the server.
On the live server, delete all the live code from the IIS website directory.
Extract the new code zipfile into the now empty IIS directory
This process is all scripted, and happens quite quickly, but there can still be a 10-20 second downtime when the old files are being deleted, and the new files being deployed.
Any suggestions on a 0 second downtime method?
You need 2 servers and a load balancer. Here's in steps:
Turn all traffic on Server 2
Deploy on Server 1
Test Server 1
Turn all traffic on Server 1
Deploy on Server 2
Test Server 2
Turn traffic on both servers
Thing is, even in this case you will still have application restarts and loss of sessions if you are using "sticky sessions". If you have database sessions or a state server, then everything should be fine.
The Microsoft Web Deployment Tool supports this to some degree:
Enables Windows Transactional File
System (TxF) support. When TxF support
is enabled, file operations are
atomic; that is, they either succeed
or fail completely. This ensures data
integrity and prevents data or files
from existing in a "half-way" or
corrupted state. In MS Deploy, TxF is
disabled by default.
It seems the transaction is for the entire sync. Also, TxF is a feature of Windows Server 2008, so this transaction feature will not work with earlier versions.
I believe it's possible to modify your script for 0-downtime using folders as versions and the IIS metabase:
for an existing path/url:
path: \web\app\v2.0\
url: http://app
Copy new (or modified) website to server under
\web\app\v2.1\
Modify IIS metabase to change the website path
from \web\app\2.0\
to \web\app\v2.1\
This method offers the following benefits:
In the event new version has a problem, you can easily rollback to v2.0
To deploy to multiple physical or virtual servers, you could use your script for file deployment. Once all servers have the new version, you can simultaneously change all servers' metabases using the Microsoft Web Deployment Tool.
You can achieve zero downtime deployment on a single server by utilizing Application Request Routing in IIS as a software load balancer between two local IIS sites on different ports. This is known as a blue green deployment strategy where only one of the two sites is available in the load balancer at any given time. Deploy to the site that is "down", warm it up, and bring it into the load balancer (usually by passing a Application Request Routing health check), then take the original site that was up, out of the "pool" (again by making its health check fail).
A full tutorial can be found here.
I went through this recently and the solution I came up with was to have two sites set up in IIS and to switch between them.
For my configuration, I had a web directory for each A and B site like this:
c:\Intranet\Live A\Interface
c:\Intranet\Live B\Interface
In IIS, I have two identical sites (same ports, authentication etc) each with their own application pool. One of the sites is running (A) and the other is stopped (B). the live one also has the live host header.
When it comes to deploy to live, I simply publish to the STOPPED site's location. Because I can access the B site using its port, I can pre-warm the site so the first user doesn't cause an application start. Then using a batch file I copy the live host header to B, stop A and start B.
OK so since everyone is downvoting the answer I wrote way back in 2008*...
I will tell you how we do it now in 2014. We no longer use Web Sites because we are using ASP.NET MVC now.
We certainly do not need a load balancer and two servers to do it, that's fine if you have 3 servers for every website you maintain but it's total overkill for most websites.
Also, we don't rely on the latest wizard from Microsoft - too slow, and too much hidden magic, and too prone to changing its name.
Here's how we do it:
We have a post build step that copies generated DLLs into a 'bin-pub' folder.
We use Beyond Compare (which is excellent**) to verify and sync changed files (over FTP because that is widely supported) up to the production server
We have a secure URL on the website containing a button which copies everything in 'bin-pub' to 'bin' (taking a backup first to enable quick rollback). At this point the app restarts itself. Then our ORM checks if there are any tables or columns that need to be added and creates them.
That is only milliseconds downtime. The app restart can take a second or two but during the restart requests are buffered so there is effectively zero downtime.
The whole deployment process takes anywhere from 5 seconds to 30 minutes, depending how many files are changed and how many changes to review.
This way you do not have to copy an entire website to a different directory but just the bin folder. You also have complete control over the process and know exactly what is changing.
**We always do a quick eyeball of the changes we are deploying - as a last minute double check, so we know what to test and if anything breaks we ready. We use Beyond Compare because it lets you easily diff files over FTP. I would never do this without BC, you have no idea what you are overwriting.
*Scroll to the bottom to see it :( BTW I would no longer recommend Web Sites because they are slower to build and can crash badly with half compiled temp files. We used them in the past because they allowed more agile file-by-file deployment. Very quick to fix a minor issue and you can see exactly what you are deploying (if using Beyond Compare of course - otherwise forget it).
Using Microsoft.Web.Administration's ServerManager class you can develop your own deployment agent.
The trick is to change the PhysicalPath of the VirtualDirectory, which results in an online atomic switch between old and new web apps.
Be aware that this can result in old and new AppDomains executing in parallel!
The problem is how to synchronize changes to databases etc.
By polling for the existence of AppDomains with old or new PhysicalPaths it is possible to detect when the old AppDomain(s) have terminated, and if the new AppDomain(s) have started up.
To force an AppDomain to start you must make an HTTP request (IIS 7.5 supports Autostart feature)
Now you need a way to block requests for the new AppDomain.
I use a named mutex - which is created and owned by the deployment agent, waited on by the Application_Start of the new web app, and then released by the deployment agent once the database updates have been made.
(I use a marker file in the web app to enable the mutex wait behaviour)
Once the new web app is running I delete the marker file.
The only zero downtime methods I can think of involve hosting on at least 2 servers.
I would refine George's answer a bit, as follows, for a single server:
Use a Web Deployment Project to pre-compile the site into a single DLL
Zip up the new site, and upload it to the server
Unzip it to a new folder located in a folder with the right permissions for the site, so the unzipped files inherit the permissions correctly (perhaps e:\web, with subfolders v20090901, v20090916, etc)
Use IIS Manager to change the name of folder containing the site
Keep the old folder around for a while, so you can fallback to it in the event of problems
Step 4 will cause the IIS worker process to recycle.
This is only zero downtime if you're not using InProc sessions; use SQL mode instead if you can (even better, avoid session state entirely).
Of course, it's a little more involved when there are multiple servers and/or database changes....
To expand on sklivvz's answer, which relied on having some kind of load balancer (or just a standby copy on the same server)
Direct all traffic to Site/Server 2
Optionally wait a bit, to ensure that as few users as possible have pending workflows on the deployed version
Deploy to Site/Server 1 and warm it up as much as possible
Execute database migrations transactionally (strive to make this possible)
Immediately direct all traffic to Site/Server 1
Deploy to Site/Server 2
Direct traffic to both sites/servers
It is possible to introduce a bit of smoke testing, by creating a database snapshot/copy, but that's not always feasible.
If possible and needed use "routing differences", such as different tenant URL:s (customerX.myapp.net) or different users, to deploy to an unknowing group of guinea pigs first. If nothing fails, release to everyone.
Since database migrations are involved, rolling back to a previous version is often impossible.
There are ways to make applications play nicer in these scenarios, such as using event queues and playback mechanisms, but since we're talking about deploying changes to something that is in use, there's really no fool proof way.
This is how I do it:
Absolute minimum system requirements:
1 server with
1 load balancer/reverse proxy (e.g. nginx) running on port 80
2 ASP.NET-Core/mono reverse-proxy/fastcgi chroot-jails or docker-containers listening on 2 different TCP ports
(or even just two reverse-proxy applications on 2 different TCP ports without any sandbox)
Workflow:
start transaction myupdate
try
Web-Service: Tell all applications on all web-servers to go into primary read-only mode
Application switch to primary read-only mode, and responds
Web sockets begin notifying all clients
Wait for all applications to respond
wait (custom short interval)
Web-Service: Tell all applications on all web-servers to go into secondary read-only mode
Application switch to secondary read-only mode (data-entry fuse)
Updatedb - secondary read-only mode (switches database to read-only)
Web-Service: Create backup of database
Web-Service: Restore backup to new database
Web-Service: Update new database with new schema
Deploy new application to apt-repository
(for windows, you will have to write your own custom deployment web-service)
ssh into every machine in array_of_new_webapps
run apt-get update
then either
apt-get dist-upgrade
OR
apt-get install <packagename>
OR
apt-get install --only-upgrade <packagename>
depending on what you need
-- This deploys the new application to all new chroots (or servers/VMs)
Test: Test new application under test.domain.xxx
-- everything that fails should throw an exception here
commit myupdate;
Web-Service: Tell all applications to send web-socket request to reload the pages to all clients at time x (+/- random number)
#client: notify of reload and that this causes loss of unsafed data, with option to abort
# time x: Switch load balancer from array_of_old_webapps to array_of_new_webapps
Decomission/Recycle array_of_old_webapps, etc.
catch
rollback myupdate
switch to read-write mode
Web-Service: Tell all applications to send web-socket request to unblock read-only mode
end try
A workaround with no down time and I am regularly using is:
Rename running .NET core application dll to filename.dll.backup
Upload the new .dll (web application is available and serving the requests while file is being uploaded)
Once upload is complete recycle the Application Pool. Either Requires RDP Access to server or function to recycle application pool in your hosting control panel.
IIS overlaps the app pool when recycling so there usually isn’t any downtime during a recycle. So requests still come in without every knowing the app pool has been recycled and the requests are served seamlessly with no downtime.
I am still searching for more better method than this..!! :)
IIS/Windows
After trying every possible solution we use this very simple technique:
IIS application points to a folder /app that is a symlink (!) to /app_green
We deploy the app to /app_blue
We change the symlink to point to /app_blue (the app keeps working)
We recycle the application pool
Zero downtime, but the app does choke for 3-5 seconds (JIT compilation and other initialization tasks)
Someone called it a "poor man's blue-green deployment" without a load balancer.
Nginx/linux
On nginx/linux we use "proper" blue-green deployment:
nginx reverse proxy points to localhost:3000
we deploy to localhost:3001
warmup the localhost:3001
switch the reverse proxy
shot down localhost:3000
(or use docker)
Both windows and linux solutions can be easily automated with powershell/bash scripts and invoked via Github Actions or a similar CD/CI engine.
I would suggest keeping the old files there and simply overwriting them. That way the downtime is limited to single-file overwrite times and there is only ever one file missing at a time.
Not sure this helps in a "web application" though (i think you are saying that's what you're using), which is why we always use "web sites". Also with "web sites" deploying doesn't restart your site and drop all the user sessions.