By reading documents on MSDN, I realized that it is recommended to create separate hosts by functionality (Sending hosts, Receiving hosts and Processing hosts). And if there is only one host in this bizTalk server, this host can perform all receiving, sending, and processing messages functionality.
My question is: Is it possible to have multiple hosts that each host can perform its own sending, receiving and processing function , and not affect each other?
This is for multiple developers working on the same project, because our current situation doesn't allow us to have a full set of SQL Server Database and SQL server for each developer or using VM.
Thanks a lot!
Multiple hosts is not a solution for letting multiple developers work on a single server. A single send/receive adapter can only be assigned to one host.
You will also run into other problems, as all the configuration settings are shared in a single database, a change from 1 developer will effect the others.
This same question was asked and answered at MSDN. What you are trying to do is not supported and will not work. There is no way around this.
You must deploy the same application code to each computer in a BizTalk Group.
Sharing a BizTalk computer for development work is not a workable or productive solution and will have a definite negative affect on productivity.
You are correct, the best way to handle DEV is a VM with the entire stack. This is the issue you must address in your environment.
Related
My questions concerns gRPC clients using the C core, specifically C++
I've been debugging one of our servers, and I've noticed a certain two-client flow worked when the clients were launched from separate processes (two separate console windows) but not from within an automated test case (which runs within a single process). The flow in question involves two "clients" (channels, basically) which are alive at the same time and concurrently issuing requests to the same server
Digging further, I discovered that in the working flow the server received requests from two different ip:port combinations: 127.0.0.1:xxxx and 127.0.0.1:yyyy. In the failing scenario however, both requests come from the same ip:port.
I create a separate channel for every client, so this behavior confused me. I have a couple of questions
Does gRPC share ports between channels in the same process like this? If not, then I have to imagine there's a bug in my code
If yes to (1), is there any way to avoid this port reuse?
I do see the "grpc.so_reuseport" option in the channel's metadata, and note that it is enabled by default. This seems more related to servers than clients (though perhaps I'm making an arbitrary distinction), but I'll disable it and try things out
EDIT: The so_reuseport option doesn't do anything, but I am on Windows so I should have expected that anyways :/ I also found a related question without any answers here
EDIT 2: The discussion on this question seems promising. Will try it out and report back
This is mentioned/explained in the question I link in edit 2, but the answer is to use
auto metadata = grpc::ChannelArguments();
metadata.SetInt(GRPC_ARG_USE_LOCAL_SUBCHANNEL_POOL, 1);
and pass it to grpc::CreateCustomChannel
It is found that some BizTalk Receive Locations are disabled after server reboot (BizTalk server and SQL Server are separately installed to different physical servers)
Is there any idea on this scenario? Due to the boot sequence or other issues?
I will assume that, once you enable the receive locations manually, they are working correctly.
Typically, when FILE receive locations fail while pointing to an external server/share, it is because they are no longer available.
Make sure that, during the night, there are no network issues, planned/unplanned downtime of the share (= here your SQL server). A BizTalk receive location will retry to access a share for quite a while before disabling itself. Check the event log(s) for more information. You would want to look for errors/warnings there indicating an issue with connectivity between BizTalk and SQL.
Another issue might be that there are too many connections between your BizTalk server and SQL server. You can provide a maximum number of connections in the FILE share properties.
Also, you could try this link: https://serverfault.com/questions/235032/intermittent-connection-to-windows-7-shared-folder-from-windows-xp-workstations
It describes a potential fix for optimizing throughput for file sharing, although it depends on your operating system.
I would like to write an application to manage files, directories and processes on hundreds of remote PCs. There are measurement programs running on these machines, which are currently managed manually using TightVNC / RealVNC. Since the number of machines is large (and increasing) there is a need for automatic management. The plan is that our operators would get a scriptable client application, from which they could send queries and commands to server applications running on each remote PC.
For the communication, I would like to use a TCP-based custom protocol, but it is administratively complicated and would take very long to open pinholes in every firewall in the way. Fortunately, there is a program with a built-in TinyWeb-based custom web server running on every remote PC, and port 80 is opened in every firewall. These web servers serve requests coming from a central server, by starting a CGI program, which loads and sends back parts of the log files of measurement programs.
So the plan is to write a CGI program, and communicate with it from the clients through HTTP (using GET and POST). Although (most of) the remote PCs are inside the corporate intranet, they are scattered all over the country, I would like to secure the communication. It would not be wise to send commands, which manipulate files and processes, in plain text. Unfortunately the program which contains the web server cannot be touched, so I cannot simply prepare it for HTTPS. I can only implement the security layer in the client and in the CGI program. What should I do?
I have read all similar questions in SO, but I am still not sure what to do in this specific situation. Thank you for your help.
There are several webshells but as far as I can see ( http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mressl/webshell/features.html ) they run on the top of an existing SSL/TLS layer.
There is also S-HTTP.
There are several ways of authenticating to an server (username/passwort) in a protected way, without SSL. http://www.switchonthecode.com/tutorials/secure-authentication-without-ssl-using-javascript . But these solutions are focused only on sending a username/password to the server.
Would it be possible to implement something like message-level security in SOAP/WS-Security? I realise this might be a bit heavy duty and complicated to implement, but at least it is
standardised
definitely secure
possibly supported by some libraries or frameworks you could use
suitable for HTTP
I'm building a client-server application and I am looking at adding failover to the client so that when a server is down it will try to connect to another available server. Are there any standards or specifications covering server failover? I'd rather adopt an existing standard than implement my own mechanism.
I don't there is, or needs to be any. It's pretty straight forward and all depends on how you can connect to your sever, but basically you need to keep sending pings/keepalives/heartbeats whatever you want to call em, and when a fail occurs (or n fails in a row, if you want) change a switch in your config.
Typically, the above would be running as a separate service on the client machine. Altenativly, you could create a method execution handler which handles thr execution of all server calls you make, and on Communication failure, in your 'catch' block, flick your switch in config
You're question is very general. here are some general answers:
Google for Fault Tolerant Computing
Google for High Availability Solutions
This is usually handled at either the load balancer or the server level. This isn't something you normally do in code at the client.
Typically, you multihome the servers each having their own IP + one that is shared between all of them. Further, they communicate with each other over tcp for the heartbeat to know which is the Active node in an Active / Passive cluster.
I can't tell what type of servers you have, but most of the windows servers can do this natively.
You might consider asking the question at serverfault to see how to properly configure your servers to support this.
I'm putting together my deployment plan for a major deployment next week (basically taking over a site).
I've never had to deploy to multiple web servers before.
Do I need to copy the files to each web server, or is there a tool which will do this for me?
I have to supply the IP address to some 3rd party vendors, which IP do I give them since there are four separate servers?
Please check this thread, hope this will help you: What method do you use to deploy ASP.Net applications to the wild?
I would of expected that there would be a load balancer which would spread the traffic between the servers. In which case you would give out the IP address of the external interface of the load balanacer.
For updates in this scenario I would typically take one server out of the loop for the load balancer then update that server, test it works ok then if you have 4 servers take another out and update/test that server. Then switch the load balancer so that the 2 updated servers are live and the other 2 are offline update/test those servers and then put them back into the loop so they're live and your update is complete with no downtime. Of course I'd typically do this during a period of low traffic where possible.
Whether you do this using some sort of automatic script or manually would depend on what systems you have in place and how often you would expect to make updates.
It's worth saying that Microsoft have since released a couple of tools to help with this:
http://www.iis.net/download/webdeploy
http://www.iis.net/download/WebFarmFramework