I have a Mirth application installed in Ubuntu server. I try to move the application from one server to another server (DRC server). When I moved the application, somehow the Mirth keep sending old messages to the channel.
The source of sending channel is using Database Reader and connecter type for destinations is using TCP Sender. Im using Mirth Connect version 3.5.2
Does anyone know why this is happening. Is there any log files that I need to clear when moving the application from one server to another?
This can happen for several reasons. Application logic, queued messages. My guess is you moved appdata directory along with installation, if so you must be seeing similar stats from where you moved.
Mirth stores all channels information, transactions etc. by default under appdata folder. If you are using default settings it'll use derby db. You can connect to that DB with any DB client support JDBC. i.e.
SQuirelL or DB Visualizer and that can give you an idea what's happening.
I recommend you to make a clear setup. Then, you can export/import your channels into your new environment. You can also consider using any other DB, oracle/sqlserver/mysql.. for Mirth. Current version is 3.9.10 and it has better support for DBs other than derby.
As mentioned in the comments your application logic also matters.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
Is there a way to connect to an Amazon S3 bucket with FTP or SFTP rather than the built-in Amazon file transfer interface in the AWS console? Seems odd that this isn't a readily available option.
There are three options.
You can use a native Amazon Managed SFTP service (aka AWS Transfer for SFTP), which is easier to set up.
Or you can mount the bucket to a file system on a Linux server and access the files using the SFTP as any other files on the server (which gives you greater control).
Or you can just use a (GUI) client that natively supports S3 protocol (what is free).
Managed SFTP Service
In your Amazon AWS Console, go to AWS Transfer for SFTP and create a new server.
In SFTP server page, add a new SFTP user (or users).
Permissions of users are governed by an associated AWS role in IAM service (for a quick start, you can use AmazonS3FullAccess policy).
The role must have a trust relationship to transfer.amazonaws.com.
For details, see my guide Setting up an SFTP access to Amazon S3.
Mounting Bucket to Linux Server
Just mount the bucket using s3fs file system (or similar) to a Linux server (e.g. Amazon EC2) and use the server's built-in SFTP server to access the bucket.
Install the s3fs
Add your security credentials in a form access-key-id:secret-access-key to /etc/passwd-s3fs
Add a bucket mounting entry to fstab:
<bucket> /mnt/<bucket> fuse.s3fs rw,nosuid,nodev,allow_other 0 0
For details, see my guide Setting up an SFTP access to Amazon S3.
Use S3 Client
Or use any free "FTP/SFTP client", that's also an "S3 client", and you do not have setup anything on server-side. For example, my WinSCP or Cyberduck.
WinSCP has even scripting and .NET/PowerShell interface, if you need to automate the transfers.
Update
S3 now offers a fully-managed SFTP Gateway Service for S3 that integrates with IAM and can be administered using aws-cli.
There are theoretical and practical reasons why this isn't a perfect solution, but it does work...
You can install an FTP/SFTP service (such as proftpd) on a linux server, either in EC2 or in your own data center... then mount a bucket into the filesystem where the ftp server is configured to chroot, using s3fs.
I have a client that serves content out of S3, and the content is provided to them by a 3rd party who only supports ftp pushes... so, with some hesitation (due to the impedance mismatch between S3 and an actual filesystem) but lacking the time to write a proper FTP/S3 gateway server software package (which I still intend to do one of these days), I proposed and deployed this solution for them several months ago and they have not reported any problems with the system.
As a bonus, since proftpd can chroot each user into their own home directory and "pretend" (as far as the user can tell) that files owned by the proftpd user are actually owned by the logged in user, this segregates each ftp user into a "subdirectory" of the bucket, and makes the other users' files inaccessible.
There is a problem with the default configuration, however.
Once you start to get a few tens or hundreds of files, the problem will manifest itself when you pull a directory listing, because ProFTPd will attempt to read the .ftpaccess files over, and over, and over again, and for each file in the directory, .ftpaccess is checked to see if the user should be allowed to view it.
You can disable this behavior in ProFTPd, but I would suggest that the most correct configuration is to configure additional options -o enable_noobj_cache -o stat_cache_expire=30 in s3fs:
-o stat_cache_expire (default is no expire)
specify expire time(seconds) for entries in the stat cache
Without this option, you'll make fewer requests to S3, but you also will not always reliably discover changes made to objects if external processes or other instances of s3fs are also modifying the objects in the bucket. The value "30" in my system was selected somewhat arbitrarily.
-o enable_noobj_cache (default is disable)
enable cache entries for the object which does not exist. s3fs always has to check whether file(or sub directory) exists under object(path) when s3fs does some command, since s3fs has recognized a directory which does not exist and has files or subdirectories under itself. It increases ListBucket request and makes performance bad. You can specify this option for performance, s3fs memorizes in stat cache that the object (file or directory) does not exist.
This option allows s3fs to remember that .ftpaccess wasn't there.
Unrelated to the performance issues that can arise with ProFTPd, which are resolved by the above changes, you also need to enable -o enable_content_md5 in s3fs.
-o enable_content_md5 (default is disable)
verifying uploaded data without multipart by content-md5 header. Enable to send "Content-MD5" header when uploading a object without multipart posting. If this option is enabled, it has some influences on a performance of s3fs when uploading small object. Because s3fs always checks MD5 when uploading large object, this option does not affect on large object.
This is an option which never should have been an option -- it should always be enabled, because not doing this bypasses a critical integrity check for only a negligible performance benefit. When an object is uploaded to S3 with a Content-MD5: header, S3 will validate the checksum and reject the object if it's corrupted in transit. However unlikely that might be, it seems short-sighted to disable this safety check.
Quotes are from the man page of s3fs. Grammatical errors are in the original text.
Answer from 2014 for the people who are down-voting me:
Well, S3 isn't FTP. There are lots and lots of clients that support S3, however.
Pretty much every notable FTP client on OS X has support, including Transmit and Cyberduck.
If you're on Windows, take a look at Cyberduck or CloudBerry.
Updated answer for 2019:
AWS has recently released the AWS Transfer for SFTP service, which may do what you're looking for.
Or spin Linux instance for SFTP Gateway in your AWS infrastructure that saves uploaded files to your Amazon S3 bucket.
Supported by Thorntech
Amazon has released SFTP services for S3, but they only do SFTP (not FTP or FTPES) and they can be cost prohibitive depending on your circumstances.
I'm the Founder of DocEvent.io, and we provide FTP/S Gateways for your S3 bucket without having to spin up servers or worry about infrastructure.
There are also other companies that provide a standalone FTP server that you pay by the month that can connect to an S3 bucket through the software configuration, for example brickftp.com.
Lastly there are also some AWS Marketplace apps that can help, here is a search link. Many of these spin up instances in your own infrastructure - this means you'll have to manage and upgrade the instances yourself which can be difficult to maintain and configure over time.
WinSCp now supports S3 protocol
First, make sure your AWS user with S3 access permissions has an “Access key ID” created. You also have to know the “Secret access key”. Access keys are created and managed on Users page of IAM Management Console.
Make sure New site node is selected.
On the New site node, select Amazon S3 protocol.
Enter your AWS user Access key ID and Secret access key
Save your site settings using the Save button.
Login using the Login button.
Filezilla just released a Pro version of their FTP client. It connects to S3 buckets in a streamlined FTP like experience. I use it myself (no affiliation whatsoever) and it works great.
As other posters have pointed out, there are some limitations with the AWS Transfer for SFTP service. You need to closely align requirements. For example, there are no quotas, whitelists/blacklists, file type limits, and non key based access requires external services. There is also a certain overhead relating to user management and IAM, which can get to be a pain at scale.
We have been running an SFTP S3 Proxy Gateway for about 5 years now for our customers. The core solution is wrapped in a collection of Docker services and deployed in whatever context is needed, even on-premise or local development servers. The use case for us is a little different as our solution is focused data processing and pipelines vs a file share. In a Salesforce example, a customer will use SFTP as the transport method sending email, purchase...data to an SFTP/S3 enpoint. This is mapped an object key on S3. Upon arrival, the data is picked up, processed, routed and loaded to a warehouse. We also have fairly significant auditing requirements for each transfer, something the Cloudwatch logs for AWS do not directly provide.
As other have mentioned, rolling your own is an option too. Using AWS Lightsail you can setup a cluster, say 4, of $10 2GB instances using either Route 53 or an ELB.
In general, it is great to see AWS offer this service and I expect it to mature over time. However, depending on your use case, alternative solutions may be a better fit.
I have scala application with akka steams. So the flow of my application is like this:
1. Check if file exists on FTP - I'm doing it with the org.apache.commons.net.ftp.FTPClient
2. If it exists stream it via alpakka library(and make some stream transformations)
My application works locally and it can connect to the server.
The problem is when it is being deployed to dcos/mesos. I get an issue:
java.io.IOException: /path/file.txt: No such file or directory
I can say for sure that file still exists there. Also when I try to connect from docker container locally through the ftp I've got something like this:
ftp> open some.ftp.address.com
Connected to some.ftp.address.com.
220 Microsoft FTP Service
Name (some.ftp.address.com:root): USER
331 Password required
Password:
230 User logged in.
Remote system type is Windows_NT.
ftp> dir
501 Server cannot accept argument.
ftp: bind: Address already in use
ftp>
Not sure if its still helpful but I also got my ftp client transfering data from inside a Docker container after changing the data connection to passive. I think that active mode requires the client to have open ports which the server connects to when returning file listing results and during data transfer. However the client ports are not reachable from outside of the docker container since the requests are not routed through (like in a NAT:et network).
Found this post explaning active/passive FTP connections
https://labs.daemon.com.au/t/active-vs-passive-ftp/182
So my problem was really weird. But I've managed to fix this way.
Quick answer: I was using alpakka ftp lib this way:
Ftp
.fromPath(url, user, pass, Paths.get(s"/path/$fileName"))
But using this way it works:
val ftpSettings = FtpSettings(
host = InetAddress.getByName(url),
port = 21,
NonAnonFtpCredentials(user, pass),
binary = true,
passiveMode = true
)
Ftp
.fromPath(Paths.get(s"/path/$fileName"), ftpSettings)
Longer answer: I started investigating alpakka lib and I've discovered that it uses the same lib that works for me during checking if file exists!
https://github.com/akka/alpakka/blob/master/ftp/src/main/scala/akka/stream/alpakka/ftp/impl/FtpOperations.scala
So I've started digging and it seems that most likely tahat setting passive mode to true was the solution. But it's weird because I've read that windows ftp server does not support passive mode...
I hope someone could clarify my doubts one day, but at the moment I'm happy because it works :)
I've read some articles recently on setting up AWS infrastructure w/o enabling SSH on Ec2 instances. My web app requires a binary to run. So how can I deploy my application to an ec2 instance w/o using ssh?
This was the article in question.
http://wblinks.com/notes/aws-tips-i-wish-id-known-before-i-started/
Although doable, like the article says, it requires to think about servers as ephemeral servers. A good example of this is web services that scale up and down depending on demand. If something goes wrong with one of the servers you can just terminate your server and spin up another one.
Generally, you can accomplish this using a pull model. For example at bootup pull your code from a git/mecurial repository and then execute scripts to setup your instance. The script will setup all the monitoring required to determine whether your server and application are up and running appropriately. You would still need an SSH client for this if you want to pull your code using ssh. (Although you could also do it through HTTPS)
You can also use configuration management tools that don't use ssh at all like Puppet or Chef. Essentially your node/server will pull all your application and server configuration from the Puppet master or the Chef server. The Puppet agent or Chef client would then perform all the configuration/deployment/monitoring changes for your application to run.
If you with this model I think one of the most critical components is monitoring. You need to know at all times if there's something wrong with one of your server and in the event something goes wrong discard the server and spin up a new one. (Even better if this whole process is automated)
Hope this helps.
I want to send a live video stream to a server and I want to perform facial recognition on that video and I would like to get the result back to the client program. Where do I get a server? Can I use Windows Azure here? If yes, can I also make a Python/C++ Server program listen on a particular port?
You haven't talked about the client-side piece. Assuming you're in control of a client app, you could push the video to a Blob, then drop a notification in an Azure queue for a background task to process the uploaded video fragment.
Instead of directly pushing to blobs, you could host a web service that lets you push uploads, and the web service could store the video fragment and then trigger a background processing task.
Running python should be very straightforward - just upload the python exe and any related modules, either with your Windows Azure deployment or in blob storage (then pull them down from blob storage and install them when the VM starts up). As far as port-listening, you can define up to 25 ports that are external-facing. You'd then have your python app listen on the port you defined (either tcp, http, or https).
More info on block and page blobs here. Steve Marx posted this example for installing python in your Web or Worker role.