I need to provide access via mobile web (asp.net) to small pieces of data (Just total's of the day etc.) that resides at our customers SQL Server, it would be to much of work for me to set up port forwarding and configure all ip's for each and every customer.
So I'm thinking of an alternate way to achieve that, I think maybe to make a small program running on the customers server that would push updates to our db, they may be an option. but I hope there's an easier way of doing that.
Any advice?
Will http endpoints work for you?
Related
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.
I want to create a program in which a user enters data and saves it on a text file. For example they enter a name and their age and it saves it and loads it. The thing is that i want this program to be available to the user at all times on any computer which means having the program online.
Do i need to make the program have networking capabilities? Or can i just have a server or host computer to hold the program and have the client access that directly?(like using the spreadsheets from google).
I don't know what you mean by "do I need to make the program have networking capabilities". If you choose to avoid the web site route then you need to have a server and client side app. If you want the program to be able to save data to a server then you need to do some socket programming.
To create a server, you need to:
create a socket
bind the socket to an address and port
listen for incoming connections
wait for clients
accept a client
send and receive data
To create a client, you need to:
create a socket
connect to a server
send and receive data
Hope this helps!
There are may ways to accomplish your goal, but the route that is probably easiest and most useful is to create a web page that implements this functionality.
Some of the many benefits include
No special software to install. Just requires a web browser.
Runs on any platform (including mobile) that has a web browser.
No software updates to push out to users. Update your website, and everyone gets the latest code.
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 have an application that runs normally in my first website.
If i move this applicatio to another server, but i don't move db (that remains to server 1), it runs very slowly to retrive data from sql.
The problem is only network or is there any issue in my code?
I use ADO.NET with LINQ...
Thank
If they were residing on the same server before and now their not, then yeah it's almost certainly a network issue. Are the servers housed in the same location? I'm taking a guess here since I don't have adequate information, but there's a chance that your intranet isn't configured correctly or you're using an external IP's. In that case one or both of the request and response are being sent out over the internet when they could be using your or your company's internal network to communicate.
Profile your queries. See how much time it takes to execute each. If your queries return fast, the problem might be your front-end code or the network.
You can log your Linq queries to console (or a Textwriter, for example). Something like:
dataContext.Log = Console.Out;
Then run the queries in SQL Server and see how efficient they are. Do they use indexes? Do they perform table scans? etc.
I'm making a network game (1v1) where in-game its p2p - no need for a game server.
However, for players to be able to "find each other", without the need to coordinate in another medium and enter IP addresses (similar to the modem days of network games), I need to have a coordination/matching server.
I can't use regular web hosting because:
The clients will communicate in UDP.
Therefore I'll need to do UDP Hole Punching to be able to go through the NAT
That would require the server to talk in UDP and know the client's IP and port
afaik with regular web hosting (php/etc) I can only get the client's IP address and can only communicate in TCP (HTTP).
Options I am currently considering:
Use a hosting solution where my program can accept UDP connection. (any recommendations?)
UDPonNAT seems to do this but uses GTalk and requires each client to have a GTalk account for this (which probably makes it an unsuitable solution)
Any ideas? Thanks :)
First, let me say that this is well out of my realm of expertise, but I found myself very interested, so I've been doing some searching and reading.
It seems that the most commonly prescribed solution for UDP NAT traversal is to use a STUN server. I did some quick searches to see if there are any companies that will just straight-up provide you with a STUN hosting solution, but if there even were any, they were buried in piles of ads for simple web hosting.
Fortunately, it seems there are several STUN servers that are already up and running and free for public use. There is a list of public STUN servers at voip-info.org.
In addition, there is plenty more information to be had if you explore SO questions tagged "nat".
I don't see any other choice than to have a dedicated server running your code. The other solutions you propose are, shall we say, less than optimal.
If you start small, virtual hosting will be fine. Costs are pretty minimal.
Rather than a full-blown dedicated server, you could just get a cheap shared hosting service and have the application interface with a PHP page, which in turn interfaces with a MySQL database backend.
For example, Lunarpages has a $3/month starter package that includes 5gb of space and 50gb of bandwidth. For something this simple, that's all you should need.
Then you just have your application poll the web page for the list of games, and submit a POST request in order to add their own game to the list.
Of course, this method requires learning PHP and MySQL if you don't already know them. And if you do it right, you can have the PHP page enter a sort of infinite loop to keep the connection open and just feed updates to the client, rather than polling the page every few seconds and wasting a lot of bandwidth. That's way outside the scope of this answer though.
Oh, and if you're looking for something absolutely free, search for a free PHP host. Those exist too! Even with an ad-supported host, your app could just grab the page and ignore the ads when you parse the list of games. I know that T35 used to be one of my favorites because their free plan doesn't track space or bandwidth (it limits the per-file size, to eliminate their service being used as a media share, but it shouldn't be a problem for PHP files). But of course, I think in the long run you'll be better off going with a paid host.
Edit: T35 also says "Free hosting allows 1 domain to be hosted, while paid offers unlimited domain hosting." So you can even just pay for a domain name and link it to them! I think in the short term, that's your best (cheapest) bet. Of course, this is all assuming you either know or are willing to learn PHP in order to make this happen. :)
There's nothing that every net connection will support. STUN is probably good, UPnP can work for this.
However, it's rumored that most firewalls can be enticed to pass almost anything through UDP port 53 (DNS). You might have to argue with the OS about your access to that port though.
Also, check out SIP, it's another protocol designed for this sort of thing. With the popularity of VOIP, there may be decent built-in support for this in more firewalls.
If you're really committed to UDP, you might also consider tunneling it over HTTP.
how about you break the problem into two parts - make a game matcher client (that is distinct from the game), which can communicate via http to your cheap/shared webhost. All gamers who wants to use the game matching function use this. THe game matcher client then launches the actual game with the correct parameters (IP, etc etc) after obtaining the info from your server.
The game will then use the standard way to UDP punch thru NAT, etc etc, as per your network code. The game dont actually need to know anything about the matcher client or matcher server - in the true sense of p2p (like torrents, once you can obtain your peer's IPs, you can even disconnect from the tracker).
That way, your problems become smaller.
An intermediate solution between hosting your own dedicated server and a strictly P2P networking environment is the gnutella model. In that model, there are superpeers that act like local servers, having known IP addresses and being connected to (and thus having knowledge of) more clients than a typical peer. This still requires you to run at least one superpeer yourself, but it gives you the option to let other people run their own superpeers.