My company has been using Hamachi to access our SVN repository for a number of years. We are a small yet widely distributed development team with each programmer in a different country working from home. The server is hosted by a non-techie in our central office. Hamachi is useful here since it has a GUI and supports remote management.
This system worked well for a while, but recently I have moved to a country with poor internet speeds. Hamachi will no longer connect 99% of the time - instead I get a "Probing..." message that doesn't resolve. It's certain to be a latency issue, as the same laptop will connect without problems when I cross the border and connect using a different ISP with better speeds.
So I really need to replace Hamachi with some other VPN/protocol that handles latency better. The techie managing the repository is not comfortable installing and configuring Apache or IIS, so it looks like HTTP is out. I tried to convince my boss to go for a web hosting company, but he doesn't trust a 3rd party with our source.
Any other recommended options / experiences out there for accessing our SVN repos that would be as simple as Hamachi for setup; but be more tolerant of network latency issues?
Perhaps it's a bit much to ask of your team, but if you have a distributed team then you could switch to a distributed version control system (eg. Mercurial or Git). These don't need to use the network so much and you won't suffer from latency problems. It is an entirely new paradigm though and your team's development processes will have to change, so you might not consider it appropriate in your case.
First I should ask why you need a VPN in the first place. Subversion can operate over HTTPS, so as long as you open the proper port on the server there shouldn't be any security or connectivity issues.
Assuming that you do need a VPN, I find it difficult to believe that an administrator uncomfortable with Apache would be more comfortable installing a whole new VPN system (much more complicated and tricky, in my estimation).
Related
On Windows, I've used NEWT in the past, but it's difficult to use, not current (but I can find old copies on non-MS sites), and difficult though possible to degrade just the app's view of the network without messing up everything else on the machine like the VPN connection and NAS volumes.
On Mac, the Network Link Conditioner that is available with Xcode is far too limited and in particular doesn't model bursts, which is my current immediate interest.
I'm also interested in Windows programs running in a VMware VM, and that's already going through an emulated network connector. I wonder if that can be made to do the traffic shaping?
In summary, can someone suggest a tool that I ought to be using for this?
I guess http://henrydu.com/blog/how-to/simulate-a-slow-link-by-linux-bridge-123.html should work on your mac. It uses traffic control with ifconfig, something you might want to google for.
Sometimes a visual FoxPro App doesn't find files in a FileShare, which are there.
for example when checking in a loop File() on a existing file on a Network share about 5% of the tries don't find the file.
This works on most machines but sometimes it doesn't work. In the curren scenario I've a Windows Server 2K8 as file server (perhaps a SMB2 issue?)
I would patch your 2K8 server to SP1 (and any Windows 7 clients too), this will take care of any SMB2 issues. Those issues were around CDX index file corruption, though.
It's also possible that this is due to the caching that SMB2 uses, which can produce 'File Not Found' errors. The client registry settings involved are:
FileInfoCacheLifetime
FileNotFoundCacheLifetime
DirectoryCacheLifetime
There is a discussion regarding this on Alaska Software's website, and a useful MSI installer which can be run per workstation to adjust the settings. This company produces a product called Xbase++ but I would guess it is close enough to Visual FoxPro in terms of low-level file IO and locking.
Not positive if its an issue of Fox, or your network. Going way back in time, I had a client that had problems somewhat similar. Took Foxpro out of the equation and just used Windows Explorer and it would hang for a moment. It ended up that their network cards were set to energy saving mode and would basically time-out / shut down due to inactivity. The network drive share would apparently be released. Until the network card would re-connect and get established again, they had issues. By changing so the network card NEVER went into energy save mode, problem went away for them.
Yes. I have versions of fox pro deployed on various different servers, with various versions of windows server and never experienced an issue as described.
Maybe you could try a similar test using a different programming discipline, .Net , access, Ruby ...., etc
Post you test loop, just out of interest ?
In your development environment, do you install a local SQL express or a dedicated SQL server? What are the pro/con's of these two options?
From my own experience so far:
Local installation slows down the own development workstation due to resource consumption
Local installation is easier to debug/manage
Dedicated installation eases central administration (backup, etc)
What are your personal experiences and suggestions?
I think it really depends on how busy you expect the app to be & any cost restrictions (number of boxes, rack space etc.). If it's a low traffic inter / intranet server I'd be inclined put them on the same box. If the SQL was a small part of a busy web server, separate them. If you encapsualte them well enough then the deployment differences are a matter of configuration, rather than re-coding. ie. Code for both eventualities.
SQL Express can only use 1GB of RAM & a 4GB database - it will get only-so busy.
Local is useful when working on a laptop/from home where don't have access to a network.
Also useful when want to work on isolation from other developers and not worry about someone elses work on the same database / other activities on the server slowing you down.
I work on the server but use a local instance for the above cases
It's one of those things I see a lot but never really think of. Do you think for the purpose of web application development (specifically ASP.NET WebForms/MVC). Do you think it's advantageous to do such a thing and if so, what kind of advantages come out of it?
By virtualization I mean using products like Hyper-V to separate the server context like your SQL and Web Server, etc.
First question is, virtualization of what? Do you mean server virtualization? Do you mean running VMWare on each dev's laptop with multiple OSes? Do you mean moving everything to the cloud?
Virtualization of servers, in web app context, is not really different from that in general IT - most of the servers on the Internet, including StackOverload's, are bought to handle peak loads and spend most of the time idling away the cycles, so virtualizing them makes sense when you have more than a certain amount.
VMWare on the desktop (or other parallels on other operating systems) is superb because a) your devs can run a full instance of your server environment, including multiple virtual servers connnected in a virtual network - this is about as close to the real thing that you can get, minus hardware costs and minus devs messing with each other's servers. For clients, you can use Linux and multiple Windows installs to test various browsers, font sizes, etc. quickly - also a big win.
Moving everything to the cloud makes sense in many cases, but is probably a topic for a separate full-sized question :)
One big advantage I see is, that every developer can have his/her own sandbox to work on. If someone messes up his/her sandbox he/she can take a clean image and all is OK again. So I guess that means that there is room to experiment without losing valuable time getting back to the normal setup, you can simply do a rollback.
I'm in doubt a bit on whether you should use virtualisation for production environments. Depending on the application of course.
The only time I would use a virtual for ASP.Net development was if the app required specific setup, such as relying on installed software, wierd settings or particular shares. Every developer has their own webserver and can run their own database so if it's a "basic" webapp I don't see much value in virtuals.. it's pretty hard to break anything with a basic web app deployment :)
With a virtual server, you can test your code in a production-like environment. It is also possible to quickly revert back to the original setup. For many applications, it is useful in that time period just after you write the code, but before it goes to production.
I'm a fan of virtualizaion and use it in testing and production (VMWare and Hyper-v) but over the last year I find it less important on a dev machine. TFS provides me with all the backup/rollback ability that I need, multiple versions of .net can now exist on the same machine and VS2008 can target all those versions.
In a development environment a virtual environment is useful to put several different servers on one box, you can have an instance for your web app, one for your services, one for database, etc. That way it mimics your production environment if you are using separate servers.
One of the benefits of using virtualization in production is that your application is not tied to a specific machine. If you wanted to move your web server instance to another box, it is trivial to do so. You don't need to install or configure things on the new server and hope that everything is set up properly.
One problem I have had though in testing virtual instances is that it can run slower for some applications, specifically engineering apps that like running the CPU at 100%. So test before you leap.
I'm currently using a linux server, we run a couple of web sites of it, PHP apps with MySQL, the usual. Since the server is privately owned by some friends and myself (we do have it hosted at a professional datacenter though), from time to time we also use it to host our smallish counter-strike source and call of duty 4 matches by running the released dedicated game server packages.
I've recently subscribed to DevExpress' excellent WinForms and ASP.Net component suite, and is contemplating moving to Windows to make use of those ASP.Net components. I'm currently trying to decide between the Web and Standard editions of Windows Server, since there is a difference of nearly a thousand bucks (where I come from)
For Windows Web Server 2008, Microsoft has softened the database server restrictions and made it clear there is no need for CALs. But would one be able to run the above mentioned web servers? I've been googling and searching through forums to no avail.
Need some help before I plunk in the cash.
Thanks.
Before I give any opinion, I'll start by answering your core questions:
Yes, you can run dedicated game servers on Windows Server Web ed.
The differences between web and standard:
Web only supports 2 gigs of ram. Standard in 64bit mode can support 32gigs (and more?).
Standard comes with more things that are better suited to local server environments (eg: active directory). If you want LDAP controlled Exchange email, you'll need Standard. Most web server don't need these.
Web (apparently) won't support full-on SQL server versions. Express should run though.
Opinion time.
Dedicated and virtual dedicated monetary overheads on Windows servers are a lot... To the degree where you're paying more for the software than the hardware costs, at least for the first year.
Renting the software (as part of a managed dedicated server or VPS) is initially a lot cheaper, but over the course of a couple of years, will cost you about the same and if you run it longer, it'll eventually cost you more.
Shared Windows hosts can be good. I've been with a company called Hostek (Florida-based) and they've bent over backwards to make hosting a fairly busy site (around 6000 uniques a day) very cheap for me. It can also be atrocious. I've had bad hosting companies too. Shop around.
About a year ago, I dropped Windows at home in favour of Linux. I'm not going to enumerate the many benefits and drawbacks; I'll just tell you that that's when I stopped doing .NET in favour of more open Frameworks. I'm not using Django (a Python-based web framework). While you might not like it (or other frameworks - eg Ruby on Rails), I plead that you do check out what's happening in the open-source world before you plonk for anything Windows related since you already have the infrastructure available for hosting Django/Rails/et al.
If you wanted your own Linux server, VPSs start from around $20pcm. As I said before, severely cheaper than Windows counterparts. I now use Linode to host everything new I make. Highly affordable and they'll easily run dedicated games like your current set-up does.
Mono isn't an option for you. Not yet anyway. It does go some length to help people migrate their applications but it's still pretty sketchy on the ASPNET front. And as a comment says on another answer: the controls you want to use are strictly Windows-only for the moment.
Linux will consume fewer baseline resources than Windows will. On an old server (Windows 2000, IIRC) I had to administer, the core of Windows would consume anywhere from 100-200 megs of RAM. My current Ubuntu server eats 40megs. I'm not sure how much RAM you have to play with on your server but if it's a lower amount, you're going to fit a lot more on a Linux host. (Remember that if you have more than 2gigs, you don't have the choice of the Web Server edition)
It's clear from this that I'm a complete Linux super-enthusiast, but I know my needs differ from yours. ASP.NET is a great platform but it costs a lot of money even if you're splitting it between friends. You could opt for Windows... Or you could go Linux, donate a bit to the projects you use and buy a new plasma or something shiny for the lady.
SPLA? Isn't that for service providers? My friends and I use the hosted services for ourselves (games, email and web), though of course our web sites are publicly viewable by all; but I think that hardly qualifies as "providing a service"?
Unfortunately, staying with Linux would make it such that I would not be able to use my DevExpress components, which is my reason for considering Windows Server in the first place. .NET may be partially supported by Mono, but not fully, and DevExpress makes use of certain features of .NET that aren't (at least as yet) supported by Mono.
We also already own our own dedicated server, so are only looking for a suitable OS.
Still, your reply is appreciated.