I have a MVC4 application that runs on the cloud. I keep multiple backups but I would like also to have a backup some place online.
Does anyone have any suggestions as to where I could put this backup. In total the 3 projects I have occupy about 250MB. Could I store these somehow in an area of the cloud that I am already paying for. What about other places online?
Do you not use version control? If not, this would be the time to start.
Check out GitHub or Bitbucket. Both are free to use for public repositories, and have very affordable plans for private projects.
I would recommend Microsoft Team Foundation Server. TFS is integrated into Visual Studio.
Some of the key features
Up to 5 users free of charge
Unlimited number of projects
Continuous delivery to Azure (that can be very handy for you)
Work item tracking
Agile planning tools
Feedback management
VS Integrated Build (however, that feature is still in preview)
I've been using that service for several months and I would definitely recommend it.
I use dropbox for some of my backups, but there are plenty of alternatives, like Amazon S3, or hosting providers like RackSpace etc.
I also have a NAS box that I back up to. I installed SVN on it too, which I access via my laptop and my main desktop PC, so I pretty much always have at least 3 copies of the code at any one time. The SVN repository is also backed up to an external hard disk.
I don't use Azure (yet), so I don't know how their backup services work. I did find this link though, that might help you figure out if you can store your files separately.
I imagine, though, with it being hosted in a cloud based system, your code will be backed up and spread across quite a few servers - so it might not be that much of a problem for you.
Related
I'm looking for a best practice methodology for version control for multiple front-end developers working together on CMS based websites.
So we have several CMS based websites in active development. If you are curious, the CMS is DNN. On our test server we have front-end developers working with CSS, JS, and also adding content to pages which is of course stored on the database. We also have module developers who have local copies of the source AND database where they develop and promote to the test server. And we have a TFS server where the module developers can house their repos for version control.
My question is, how do I get front-end developers on version control? They can't have local versions of the database because all of their content (database) updates would be constantly out of sync with the test server. It's unrealistic for them to build change scripts for their content/page updates for the database (not to mention it is a different skillset and defeats the purpose of the usability of the CMS). They can't all host local copies of the files and then connect to a shared remote DB because the application uses memory cache..which would be.. you guessed it... out of sync.
I feel like I'm missing something here because other organizations must be accomplishing this somehow. We absolutely need version control on our JS/CSS resources.
Thanks.
You effectively have two sets work work that should be treated separately.
The first is your version of DNN and the customisations that you make. These should be stored in version control and you should create a deployment pipeline to ship the bits from build to servers.
The second is your in application customizations that are done with point'n'click. These are not versionable in the traditional sense and should be considered instance specific. You could, and probably should, script out all of the customisations of data and version that. So you would have a folder for each instance that you ship with the state if the data at the time you shipped.
I develop a commercial Asp.Net MVC Web Application. The application is standard, runs on IIS Web Server and utilizes SQL Server database. Our business model is such that we deploy our application on-site in our customers’ Intranet or data center. That is, for each such customer (account) we supply the complete setup, usually installed in a dedicated standalone server. Each such account has its own private content, users, configurations and so on.
We wish to expand and offer our service on the WWW (public Internet). After some research, I’ve chosen Microsoft’s Azure cloud platform to host our application. With some minor efforts (mainly teaching the application to work with Azure’s File Storage using blobs) I’ve managed to fully deploy to the cloud, using three cloud services: Web Site, Data base and File Storage.
Please note that I employ the same code base for the two deployment types (Intranet and Cloud), by using different configurations for Debug, Release – Intranet, Staging – Azure, Production – Azure.
However, the application (as is it written now) can serve only a single customer account, while I need our cloud version to serve numerous accounts (hopefully a lot ;) … each with its own private data set.
Question: which of the following strategies should I employ here?
Change the application so it will support multiple accounts. This means changes both in the data model (adding an Account entity in the data layer, bind it to all content types, etc.) and in the business logic.
Create for each Account its own site on the cloud (web site + data base + file storage services). This means deploying several times the same application to different Azure services.
It’s obvious that the amount of development needed for the 1st approach here is very large as is the risk in stability of the system, while the 2nd approach requires much less effort.
However, im not clear about how to manage a set of many identical services (applications) each serving a different customer account. I’ve started looking for some tools to help me here (e.g. Red Gate), and would love to hear of more.
Another question is the cost – is such a solution, using many cloud services instead of only few, more costly that the more standard “one application for all accounts” approach.
thanx,
I would recommend (1). It is a higher short term cost in terms of development effort, but will be better for two reasons long term:
Cheaper. The costs will go up quite a bit by adding more cloud services. I suppose you could pass this cost on to your client though?
It does become harder to manage releases across many clients.
I would say you can either spend your time refactoring existing code you know - or - you can learn how to do dev ops against Azure to manage releases. Probably easier to refactor what you know instead of learn something new.
As a note there are many great SDKs to automate deployments, scaling cloud services, etc.
Found some good reading about this issue:
MSDN: Developing Multi-tenant Applications for the Cloud, 3rd Edition
Provides good comparison between the two approaches:
Single Instance, Multi-tenant (my 1st option)
Multi Instance, Single-tenant (my 2nd option)
As it looks i will go with the Multi-tenant approach. All things considered it looks like it will require less development effort and will need less effort in maintenance. Also, my expertise lies in application development and less in system administration (which is required for truly implementing multi-instance solution).
Other reasons: there's a need to share some of the content between accounts (tenants), and this will be more easily achieved when using a single database. Also, there are future plans for the product which can utilize this solution.
Segregation of data will be done (high level):
File storage (blobs): use a separate container for each tenant (account).
Database: use tenant unique key to associate content to tenant
Cahce: use tenant unique key to generate cache keys for cached data items.
Scalability: it is easier using one instance to simply scale up its capabilities, or even move the Web Site to a dedicated virtual machine. In the future can also enhance the system to a Multi-instance, Multi-tenant structure, creating new separate instances for large tenants.
My intention is to develop and MVC app driven by WCF services.
I will then like to deploy these to Azure.
Can I go about developing my app and services without any consideration to the fact they will be hosted in Azure earlier on in the lifecycle? Or must I structure it differently?
EDIT: More specifically - am I right in saying I can develop this application just as I would prior to deciding it would be hosted in Auzre?
Based on my research and understanding, it is a better practice to consider your future implementation to azure prior to any development, however even if you later decide to move an existing application to azure, you may need to perform some modifications to your code.
please bear in mind that, Microsoft is currently offering websites in azure that can host you asp application, you may want to read more about that.
here is some links that may help you.
http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/home/features/web-sites/
http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/manage/services/web-sites/
The advert that appears on this page as I answer this question says "Move apps to the cloud without rewriting them".
The official position from Microsoft (who pays for the ads), is that you can migrate to Azure late in the development cycle.
The reality is:
You lose a lot of the benefits of could computing if you don't architect specifically for the cloud. This applies to any cloud platform, not just Azure.
There are likely some hidden 'gotchas' that will trip you up if you develop for normal Windows and then try and move it up to Azure. Just this morning I had a developer that was frustrated by errors on SQL Azure that didn't occur on his dev machine. The approach to SQL Azure is different to standard SQL (feature differences, throttling, etc).
There are two 'it depends' that are related:
Are you intending to use cloud services or Azure websites? Azure websites are easier to migrate because they are closer to a traditional web development approach.
Applications with lots of moving parts, or that are subject to high load, need special consideration (regardless of the target platform), so you will want to optimise for, and take advantage of, Azure specifics.
If you have a good reason not to develop specifically for Azure (such as your employers official position, platform portability, etc) then don't worry about Azure for now. If your long-term intention is to run your app on Windows Azure, then code for Azure up front — the effort to take it off Azure (lock-in) will form part of your decision later on.
I would like to create a simple ASP MVC3 web applications for learning and have this hosted. I am familiar with ASP MVC but don't yet know much about the Azure cloud. If possible I would like to have these hosted on the cloud but I'm not sure where to start.
Can anyone give me any advice. For example for something very very low usage and making use of a SQL CE database what kind of azure account do I need and approximately how much would it cost.
Thanks in advance for your help.
For ASP.NET MVC 3 the thing to do is "bin deploy" it - Scott Hanselman has a post on doing exactly that on his blog:
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/BINDeployingASPNETMVC3WithRazorToAWindowsServerWithoutMVCInstalled.aspx
I recommend you download the Windows Azure platform training kit and work through the first few labs just to get the feel of Azure.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=413E88F8-5966-4A83-B309-53B7B77EDF78&displaylang=en
I agree with Nathan and XIII - you have to ditch SQL CE it just doesn't work in the elastic cloud model, look at Azure table storage instead, it's cheap and scalable. (And it's in the first lab)
If you're just playing around then grab the introductory offer on Nathan's link, it's a free start. Unfortunately you can't use it to run something permanently as there aren't enough hours. (Apparently that may change in the new year). If you want to run a very small instance for a month it's about $40, a small is $90.
If you're more serious than that, join Bizspark and get free access to more resources.
You can easily create an ASP.NET MVC project and host it on a single role. While #XIII is correct that you need to have two instances to get the Azure SLA, if you are just playing around a single instance will be fine. You should check out the special offers here: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsazure/offers/ With the Development Accelerator Core you get 750 hours of a small compute instance, which I believe you could swapped for 2x extra small insances for the same cost. (Double check this before you do it!) Additionally, you get 1 million storage transaction and 10gb of storage space. If you are starting with a new Azure app, I would recommend looking at blob storage and table storage rather than a traditional database. Azure Storage is much more scalable and will be much less expensive than SQL Azure for small scale deployments. I would suggest using the Windows Azure Toolkit to get started with table and blob storage.
I would stay away from trying to use SQL CE or any other database running on your Azure roles. That is going to be a lot more headache than it is worth for a simple deployment. If you must have a SQL database, you can get a 1gb SQL Azure instance for $10 per month.
You need at least two instances if you want to have an SLA.
Depending on the load you expect I would assume that a Small instance variant would be enough for you.
making use of a SQL CE database
That would rather become either SQL Azure or table storage instead. SQL Azure costs quite some more money than table/blob storage so try to get more information about what you want to use if costs matter to you.
To calculate the costs I suggest you check out this great tool: http://azureroi.cloudapp.net/.
I just watched the Windows Azure intro video and it left me feeling like it was a front end shell for hosted IIS instances. Can anyone who know more (possibily that was part of the beta) shed on why you would use this vs. EC2.
it seemed easy enough but really didnt give specifics on how it works, why it works or why you would use this vs the traditional solutions out there?
According to the vision (and I can only talk about the vision here since the product isn't really out yet), here's a couple of reasons you might consider Azure over EC2.
Azure includes built-in load balancing abilities. If you want to do that in Amazon, you have to roll your own solution or buy a third-party solution like www.RightScale.com.
Azure-friendly-coded apps can be delivered internally or in Microsoft's cloud. If you write apps that have confidential information like financial data or health care data, not all of your clients will be willing to put their data in the public cloud. In that case, they can deploy your apps internally on Windows. That's sold as a skillset win, because you can go from public to private projects. Don't get me wrong - if you master Amazon EC2 development, then you can deploy your apps internally with Linux virtual servers in your datacenter, but it's not as turnkey. (Hard to describe a tech preview as turnkey when it's not licensed yet, hahaha.)
Having said that, it wasn't clear that the load balancing functionality is included in the box with internal deployments. If you have to do a combination of Azure plus ISA Server, that'll be a tougher deployment and management sell.
AppHarbor is a .NET cloud hosting environment that sits on Amazon EC2. The nice thing is they offer a free plan (much like Heroku does) so you can check it out yourself with very little friction.
My company is using Amazon EC2 now and I am down at the PDC watching the details on Azure unfold. I have not seen anything yet that would convince us to move away from Amazon. Azure definitely looks compelling, but the fact is I can now utilize Windows and SQL server on Amazon with SLAs in place. Ray Ozzie made it clear that Azure will be changing A LOT based on feedback from the developer community. However, Azure has a lot of potential and we'll be watching it closely.
Also, Amazon will be adding load balancing, autoscaling and dashboard features in upcoming updates to the service (see this link: http://aws.amazon.com/contact-us/new-features-for-amazon-ec2/). Never underestimate Amazon as they have a good headstart on Cloud Computing and a big user base helping refine their offerings already. Never underestimate Microsoft either as they have a massive developer community and global reach.
Overall I do not think the cloud services of one company are mutually exclusive from one another. The great thing is that we can leverage all of them if we want to.
Microsoft should offer up the ability to host Linux based servers in their cloud. That would really turn the world upside down!
Well it's more than just web services. It will also allow you to host other types of connected applications. Plus it provides integrated access to other MS software on the cloud; i.e. SharePoint, Exchange, CRM, SQL data sevices, and will allow you to fully customize and extend those offerings in the same way that you would be able to customize and extend them if they were hosted on-premises.
At the Archtect Insight Conference last year they mentioned that they have started to alter core server products to deal with the large scale failover environment which is very interesting to me at least.
Its bunch of stuff that is coming into the Cloud. I think of this as more of Platform in the Cloud.
Sql Server
CRM
MOSS
Exchange
BizTalk
Geneva (identity)
The terms that are mentioned here are "STORE" and "COMPUTE"
For me this get really intersting around the IDEA of a Internet Service Bus.
It is also about moving to the development workflow process too.
OSLO DSLs and Qudrant - Moving to a Model Driven View
Entity Framework - giving developers strong typed model in code at a click of button
ADO Data Services and Data Dynamic Webtemplates using MVC
Then with the Azure Templates and the new "WebRoles" moving to deployment of the applications to the Cloud.
Then for the Admins one click provisioning of servers is awsome.
On the Data Privacy Rules... which is the one big elephant in the room and has been mentioned... Typically there is the often a ruling in each Country about information security.
UK RIPA
US Patriot Act
Are these really conceptully different? And these 2 countries do share information anyway...IMHO (legally they are different, but to a customer both laws give access to customer data its just question of who)
At this point, information on Windows Azure is pretty scarce. I was in the keynote during the announcement, and my best guess at this point is that they're trying to provide a more extensive virtualization environment than simply hosted IIS instances.
At this point, though, I can't say more than that.
We use S3 for storage very successfully and I've always kept an eye on EC2 for Windows and SQL Server support. So now these are available I dug further.
I was pretty worried when I read this:
http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2008/11/bad-storage-performance-on-amazon-ec2-windows-servers/
Perhaps, as we're developing what will hopefully become a very popular website, we should be considering the new data store models - Azure's or Amazon's SimpleDB. Hmmmmm - complete rewrite!
The major difference going forward is that Amazon EC2 is free from today Nov 1, Check this out.
http://www.buzzingup.com/2010/10/amazon-announces-free-cloud-services-for-new-developers/