Maybe i'm totally outdated but for last four years i've been using simple FTP upload feature while uploading new website even without building it within Visual Studio. Just bunch of ASPX and CS files as in Visual Studio.
I do understand that compiling the project will provide me with some security defence so ones who have access to the server won't be able to read those files in text editors and i will avoid first time compilation but is that so important?
I mean, you can always do a lot of harm if you have access to server that just reading CS files instead of DLL.
First time compilation usually takes no more than 1 minute just searching for compiled version of the site will take as much time.
Now i'm watching video on PluralSight which explains new MSDeploy tool available from ASP.NET and i can't see any good reason to use it.
So what's wrong with the old fashioned way of just sending files via FTP without compiling or using fancy tools?
I did speed test and with MSDeploy i can deploy a website twice faster than old-fashioned FTPing. So instead of 4 minutes it will take 2.
Now from another perspective, when i already have alive project on the web. In which have to change Default.aspx because i have typo in some html tag. Deployment via MSDeploy will take 10 times more than uploading one file
Maybe i miss something?
MSDeploy does things which FTPing to a site can't do. Need to change a machine.config? You're unlikely to have FTP write access to the folder which contains it. Want to change a server setting in a server-version-independent manner? FTP won't do that. Etc. FTP works fine for copying files to folders in which you have write access, but that's all it can do.
When you deploy a project you can do a lot of things with it.
You can set up a job in your deploy that packages all your javascript into one file and all your css into one file.
You can set up a job in your deployment that changes a bunch of config settings to match your production server settings (rather then development settings).
The idea of deployment is that you take your current development website and transform it into a production website without having to do any of that manually.
The most important thing is that when you can only deploy your website you will never forget to package your js or forget to remove some debugging code because you can't just sneakly update a single file.
Related
We have an asp.net web site that is deployed on several IIS servers. The site is compile-on-demand as opposed to a pre-compiled web application.
Normally deployments go fine but every now and again we get a 401 for one of the deployed pages on one of the servers. There is nothing special about which page or which server apart from the fact that it's generally the higher traffic pages that it happens to.
The only way to rectify this is to deploy the same page again.
The ACLs look fine on the files themselves so the thought is that there is a file locking issue in the Temporary ASP.NET Files folder when the specific page is re-compiled.
Has anyone seen this before or have any suggestions how to avoid this?
Note: This only seems to have happened since we moved to .net 4.0
As far as I can tell we are getting a 401.3 Denied by resource ACL http://support.microsoft.com/kb/907273
But I have not been able to confirm this.
Those kinds of locks have always been a problem with live site deployment. The reason it's hard to replicate is because you are mid-request when copying/compiling on the server, and this ends up confusing IIS.
We operate a Blue/Green deployment strategy on a 4 tier architecture which has a web site over 4 servers at the top tier. Due to the complexity the architecture introduced for deployments, we needed a way to deploy without disturbing any traffic to the "live" site. Following Fowler's advice, but not quite in the same way, we came up with a solution that means we have 2 sites on each server (a blue and a green, or in our case site A and site B). The live site has the appropriate host header, and once we have deployed and tested to the non-live site, we then flip the headers of the 2 sites so that what was once live is now the non-live site, and vice-versa. The effect is, a robust deployment that can be done in hours and with the highest level of confidence.
This of course complicates your configuration and deployment slightly, but it's worth the effort. I guess it kind of goes without saying that you want to script both the deployment, and the host header swapping.
When i deploy to a server i bring the site down for a minute (or however long the deployment takes) - it may be down anyway during this time as pages are recompiled so it is not too much of a hit. You can do this by creating a file in the root of the app called app_offline.aspx (it needs at least 512 characters in length) once that file is created you can then copy the resources ot the folder knowing there will not be any locking issues. then when the copy is complete remove the app_offline file.
For those that want to achieve a .net website deployment without these issues, one option is to copy the new website files into a new folder first ( not the active website). Then you just change IIS to point to the new folder after all copying is complete.
This can be done in a single server environment for those of us on more limited resources without multiple servers per website.
At my work we write power shell scripts to deploy websites. The powers shell script creates a new directory with a time stamp, copies the new deployment there, then tells IIS to point the website to the new directory (leaving the old directories "orphaned" but still there).
If we really messed something up, we can simply revert by pointing IIS back at the previous date stamp directory. Otherwise if everything tests ok, we can delete the old folder.
This technique works well because you are never writing over a file while it is in use. However it still results in zero downtime. The only effect you will see is the normal .net "warm up" that occurs anytime you change the code behinds or assemblies.
I had several answers suggesting a new environment to deploy. This is something we have been considering for the long term but it's hard to justify the extra work when we regularly deploy only one or two files without a problem. I was really more interested in finding out what is actually happening and why.
In terms of a workaround, and this might sound obvious after the fact, a simple app_pool recycle solves the permissions issue and is much easier than testing for the issue and redeploying the file until the problem goes away.
I’m looking for a good deployment strategy for deploying a ASP.NET MVC3 application. What I imagine is that each deployment would be some kind of commit to a Source Management System in the sense that a deployment tool could automatically do the following:
1) Upon generating a deployment package (a commit) the tool would
remember the state of my Web.Config file, the state of a folder of
auto-generated scripts containing new database changed, the state of
a folder of batch files that contain new tasks to be run on the
server, the state of files specifying ISS settings changes, etc.
2) When I build a package the next time, the tool would know to only
package the new script files, web.config changes, new batch files,
new ISS settings since my last package
3) Apply the package unto my web application
I started looking into MS Deploy but it only seems to do number 3. I’ve been searching around for either an application that that does what I imagine or a strategy to combine some SMS and MS Deploy. I'm hoping that someone has already solved the problem I feel I have here. My last resort of course is to build the tool but again, that would be my last resort.
Are you using Team Foundation Server? If so, TFS comes with tools to automate builds (including labeling code, running unit tests, deploying, et cetera.) Take a look at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms181710(v=vs.80).aspx
TFS is not exactly easy to configure and get going but it's free if you are already using TFS.
If you are not using TFS, look for continuous integration tools like NAnt or TeamCity.
Have you used Web Deploy and the "Publish" feature under Build in Visual Studio?
You can set options for things like leaving the previous files on the server.
Your web.config file, do you mean the main one or one that already exists elsewhere on the server? Your web.config file should copy from your project to the server, or are there settings that are different when running locally vs server? If so, look at using transforms to modify web.config.
This is only a partial answer to #1 for you, but we looked for a long time on a migration tool that we liked... We ultimately found Migrator.Net: http://code.google.com/p/migratordotnet/
Doing this, you can turn db migrations into a batch command
I need to deploy a website from the SVN to different servers all within our own network. The code is currently not compiled but probably will be in the future.
First, the site would need to be deployed to the development server for the developers to test.
Once the Developer signs off, it would be deployed to the staging server for the testers.
Once final sign off was given it would be deployed to a server farm- two live servers.
Each server has a couple of settings in the web.config to that are different (except the two live servers, of course). I would like to use templates, the way the Ruby on Rails world does. It seems like an elegant solution to multiple web.config files.
I also need to create a list/report of the files that were changed and what the change was since the last deployment.
I am thinking of writing a script that will do the following:
1. Take args for server to deploy to, and revision
2. Export a copy of the source to a directory with svn export -r <deploy revision>
3. Delete the web.config file
4. Use ttree (a template tool http://template-toolkit.org/) to create the correct web.config
5. Create a list of file changes with svn list -r <deploy revision>:<current server revision>
6. Store the <current server revision> of the website for when the script is run next time
The problem I have is it doesn't seem like the most elegant solution. It could become unmaintainable, and I prefer to use tools that are already available rather than re-invent the wheel. Unfortunately I don't think MSDeploy will do what I need, but I'm happy to use it, or anything else, if it will do what I need it to. Does anyone know of any tools that are up to the task or is the script my only option?
Check out TeamCity. I have my build server setup so that it can deploy to different environments with different settings based on the build configuration all in "One Click". It's relatively painless to setup and integrates directly with Subversion and other source control systems. This would be a more elegant solution to the issue you are dealing with...
I'm trying desperately to move from VSS to a real source control system. Options include TFS and SVN.
My designers need to keep their ability to modify source files and instantly preview their changes in a browser without having to commit their changes. Using FPSE with VSS, this works flawlessly, since saving a file causes the copy in the working folder on the dev server to be updated, so they can just save and refresh their browser which is pointed at the dev server.
The site in question consists of 350k+ lines of classic ASP code and some new ASP.NET MVC. They only need to be able to modify views within the MVC code, not C#.
Though Expression includes a version of Cassini for local debugging, Cassini does not support classic ASP.
Surely someone has solved this problem before. It can't be necessary to install IIS on each designer's machine (this is absolutely untenable). I need a way to have a common working folder on a dev webserver updated whenever someone saves a file locally, just like using FPSE.
I'd rather not write an FPSE proxy that knows how to talk to TFS/SVN. Any suggestions?
(I know I've asked this question in the past, but I haven't yet found a solution.)
Why the need to copy the source files when they are saved, why not simply save the files to a network share and work on them directly? If the dev server is constantly being overwritten after every save anyway surely the effect is the same?
This probably won't be as instantaneous as you like, but with TFS you could set up a Continuous Integration (CI) build that builds and deploys the project to a test server on check-in. If you do this, you'll want them checking in to a QA type branch, then, once they are happy with how they look, they can then merge to the mainline branch for the real build and integration.
As part of my overall development practices review I'm looking at how best to streamline and automate our ASP.net web development practices.
At the moment, our process goes something like this:
Designer builds frontend as static HTML/CSS on a network share. This gets tweaked until signed off. (e.g. http://myserver/acmesite_design)
Once signed off, developer takes over and copies over frontend HTML/CSS to a new directory on the same server (e.g. http://myserver/acmesite_development)
Multiple developers work on local copy until project is complete.
Developer publishes code to an external publicly accessible server for a client to review/signoff.
Edits made locally based on feedback.
Republish to external server.
Signoff
Developer publishes to live public server
What goes wrong? Lots of things!
Version Control — this is obviously a must and is being introduced
Configuration errors — many many times, there are environment specific paths and variables (such as DB names, image upload directories, web server paths etc. etc.) which incorrectly get copied from local to staging to live etc. etc. with very embarrassing results.
I'm pretty confident I've got no.1 under control. What about configuration management? Does anyone have any advice as to how best to manage an applications structure within asp.net apps to minimize these kinds of problems?
I found that using SVN, NAnt and NUnit with Cruise Control.net solves a lot of the issues you describe. I think it works well for small groups and it's all free. Just need to learn how to use them.
CruiseControl.net helps you put together builds and continuous integration.
Use NAnt or MSBuild to do different environment builds (DEV, TEST, PROD, etc).
http://confluence.public.thoughtworks.org/display/CCNET/Welcome+to+CruiseControl.NET
You got the most important part right. Use version control. Subversion is a good choice.
I usually store configuration along with the site; i.e. when coding a PHP-based site I have a file named config.php-dist. If you want the site to work at all you'll have to copy + edit in all the required parameters (this avoids storing passwords in version control). The -dist file should have reasonable defaults.
Upload directories should be relative if possible; actually all directories should be relative. I'm not experienced in ASP.net, but if it's anything like PHP the current directory is always the directory of the file being requested. If you channel all requests through a single file (i.e. index.asp), then this can even be found programmatically. Or you could find it programmatically by using the equivalent of dirname(____FILE____) in your configuration file.
I also recommend installing IIS (or whatever webserver you are using) on all development workstations (including the designers). Makes life easier as noone can step on each others toes. What one has to do is simply add test hosts to the hosts file (\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts iirc) in addition to adding a site to the local IIS. This plays well with version control (checkout, add site to IIS and hosts-file, edit edit edit commit).
One thing that really helps is making sure you keep your paths relative where you can and centralise them where you can't, so when I've been working with ASP.Net I have tended to use web.config to store any configuration and path related data that can't be found programmatically. It is quite possible to find information like your current application path programmatically through the Request object - it's worth looking in some detail over what the environment makes available to you.
One way to make sure you don't end up on something that is dependent on the path name is having a continuous integration server executing your test suite against your application. Each time this happens you create a random filepath. As soon as someone introduces a dependency on the filepath it will fail.