We are using a manual azure deployment strategy and then "walking the upgrade domains" we have in turn.
This is done using a combination of powershell scripts and Cerebrata cmdlets.
What we are finding is that we have 2 upgrade domains. We expect to walk domains 0 and 1 as its a zero based count. However we end up having to walk upgrade domains 0, 1 and 2.
We see a similar affect when we do this through the Azure management portal. In that we have to "Upgrade" 3 times rather than the two we are expecting.
My question is does anyone know what is going on here?
I can't find documentation for it, so I can't be sure, but IIRC, this is by design. The first call starts the first update domain. The second call marks the first as complete and starts the second. The last call marks the last update domain (and thus the entire update) as complete. Again, I can't remember this for sure, but I think you'll see the same thing in the web portal. You'll have to click the button n+1 times where n is the number of update domains.
Related
I'm currently experiencing something rather weird: while migrating emails from a GoDaddy email server to a new G Suite set up for a number of users, I was able to successfully move for a couple of emails, as confirmed by Google's 'Complete' tick beside them. I was able to observe the migration too as it went on.
However, for one of the emails, the number of emails read just seems to keep increasing, and it still hasn't displayed 'Complete', but remains stuck on '99%'.
See screenshots I literally took just now below: as of the first latest screenshot, it says 'Successfully migrated 3230 emails', while stuck on 99%:
Then I hit refresh, check the status of that same account, and now it says '...3250 emails', while still stuck on 99%:
This isn't how it's supposed to behave, at least that isn't the behaviour I experienced with the previous 4 emails in that list. Ideally, it should say 'Migrating X out of fixed_amount emails'. In this case, that fixed_amount was
about 2,000 emails. It has now since passed that figure, but instead of showing 'Complete', it instead shows 'Successfully migrated new_amount' where new_amount keeps increasing.
This has been ongoing for almost 24 hours now. Honestly, I don't know if this is a bug or not. I really just need some helpful info to know if I should be concerned or not, perhaps maybe if someone else has run into this. Anyone?
Stumbled on to Google's documentation: https://support.google.com/a/answer/7032598?hl=en
To quote the 'Why does my migration look like it's stuck at 99%?' section:
You’ll see 99% when all email is migrated. After everything is
migrated, the data migration service applies any labels to the
migrated email, which can take time. When the labels are applied, you
should see that the migration is complete (100%).
You might also see this issue if the estimated number of emails to
migrate exceeds the actual number of messages. The migration will
report 99% until the migration completes. This process might take some
time.
You shouldn't be concerned. I was migrating around 29.000 emails from a personal gmail to Google Workspace gmail and the migration took 4 days (migrating only one user), from which the last 1.5 days the migration was "stuck" at 99%. No need to restart the migration, eventually it indeed finishes. I also got several error codes (e.g. 17009 - 'Generating an access token with the supplied credentials was unsuccessful...'), but none proved valid, I haven't actioned on them as, like in your case, I saw the number of migrated emails increasing.
We are running k2 Blackpearl 4.6, and unfortunately, the K2 experts left the company. I was hired just before the last one turned in his notice. So really, there was no knowledge transfer. So I'm starting from the ground up, and supporting applications that currently use k2 within the solution.
Anyways, now that that's out of the way, one of the users that was assigned a few processes, retired. We need to re-assign any processes that were currently assigned to him to another user. So, a two part question.
Can I assign a process to another user? If so, what will I need to do to go about doing this?
Looks like all I had to do was go into the management console, click on Worklists, then filter by the Destination user. Once that was done, I could check all the items, then select 'Redirect'. The user now sees all the procesess that were assigned to the old user.
We have an internal web system that handles the majority of our companies business. Hundreds of users use it throughout the day, it's very high priority and must always be running. We're looking at moving to ASP.NET MVC 2; at the moment we use web forms. The beauty of using web forms is we can instantaneously release a single web page as opposed to deploying the entire application.
I'm interested to know how others are deploying their applications whilst still making them accessible to the user. Using the deployment tool in Visual Studio would supposedly cause a halt. I'm looking for a method that's super quick.
If you had high priority bug fixes for example, would it be wise to perhaps mix web forms with MVC and instead replace the view with a code-behind web form until you make the next proper release which isn't a web form?
I've also seen other solutions on the same server of having the same web application run side-by-side and either change the root directory in IIS or change the web.config to point to a different folder, but the problem with this is that you have to do an entire build and deploy even if it were for a simple bug fix.
EDIT: To elaborate, how do you deploy the application without causing any disruption to users.
How is everyone else doing it?
I guess you can run the MVC application uncompiled also? and just replace .cs/views and such on the run.
A websetup uninstall/install is very quick, but it kills the application pool.. which might cause problem. Depending on how your site is built.
The smoothest way is to run it on two servers and store the sessions in sql server or shared state. Then you can just bring S1 down and patch it => bring s1 back up again and bring S2 down => patch S2 and then bring it up again. Al thought this might not work if you make any major changes to the session parts of the code.
Have multiple instances of your website running on multiple servers. The best way to do it is to have a production environment, a test environment, and a developement environment. You can create test cases and run the load every time you have a new build, if can get through all the tests, move the version into production ;).
You could have two physical servers each running IIS and hosting a copy of the site. OR you could run two copies of the site under different IIS endpoints on the SAME server.
Either way you cut it you are going to need at least two copies of the site in production.
I call this an A<->B switch method.
Firstly, have each production site on a different IP address. In your company's DNS, add an entry set to one of the IPs and give it a really short TTL. Then you can update site B and also pre-test/warm-up the site by hitting the IP address. When it's ready to go, get your DNS switched to the new site B. Once your TTL has expired you can take down site A and update it.
Using a shared session state will help to minimise the transition of users between sites.
I’m about to write a workflow in CRM that calls itself every day. This is a recursive workflow.
It will run on half a million entities each day and deactive the record if it was not been upodated in the past 3 days.
I’m worried about performance has anyone else done this.
I haven't personally implemented anything like this, but that's 500,000 records that are floating around in the DB that the async service has to keep track of, which is going to tax your hardware. In addition, CRM keeps track of recursive workflow instances. I don't have the exact specs in front of me, but if a workflow calls itself a set number of times within a certain timeframe, CRM will kill the workflow.
Could you just write a console app that asks the Crm Service for records that haven't been updated in three days, and then deactivate them? Run it as a scheduled task once a day, and then your CRM system doesn't have the burden of keeping track of all those running workflow instances.
EDIT: Ah, I see now you might have been thinking of one workflow that runs on all the records as opposed to workflows running on each record. benjynito's advice makes sense if you go this route, although I still think a scheduled task would be more appropriate than using workflow.
You'll want to make sure your workflow is running in non-peak hours. Assuming you have an on-premise installation you should be able to get away with that. If you're using a hosted instance, you might be worried about one organization running the workflow while another organization is using the system. Use the timeout and maybe a custom workflow activity, if necessary, to force the start time to a certain period.
I'm assuming you'll be as efficient as possible in figuring out which records to deactivate. (i.e. Query Expression would only bring back the records you'll be deactivating).
The built-in infinite loop-protection offered by CRM shouldn't kill your workflow instances. It stops after a call depth of 8, but it resets to 1 if no calls are made for an hour. So the fact that you're doing this once a day should make you OK on the recursive workflow front.
I want to write a workflow application that routes a link to a document. The routing is based upon machines not users because I don't know who will ever be at a given post. For example, I have a form. It is initially filled out in location A. I now want it to go to location B and have them fill out the rest. Finally, it goes to location C where a supervisor will approve it.
None of these locations has a known user. That is I don't know who it will be. I only know that whomever it is is authorized (they are assigned to the workstation and are approved to be there.)
Will Microsoft Windows Workflow do this or do I need to build my own workflow based on SQL Server, IP Addresses, and so forth?
Also, How would the user at a workstation be notified a document had been sent to their machine?
Thanks for any help.
I think if I was approaching this problem workflow would work to do it. It is a state machine you want that has three states:
A Start
B Completing
C Approving
However workflow needs to work in one central place (trust me on this, you only want to have one workflow run time running at once, otherwise the same bit of work can be done multiple times see our questions on MSDN forum). So a central server running the workflow is the answer.
How you present this to the users can be done in multiple ways. Dave suggested using an ASP.NET site to identify the machines that are doing the work, which is probably how I would do it. However you could also write a windows forms client that would do the same thing. This would require using something like SOAP / WCF to facilitate communication between client form applications and the central workflow service. This would have the advantage that you could use a system try icon to alert the user.
You might also want to look at human workflow engines, as they are designed to do things such as this (and more), I'm most familiar with PNMsoft's Sequence
You can design a generic "routing" workflow that will cause data to go to a workstation. The easiest way to do this would be to embed the workflow in an ASP.NET application. Each workstation should visit the application with a workstation ID in the querystring:
http://myapp/default.aspx?wid=01
When the form is filled out at workstation A, the workflow running in the web app can enter it into the "work bin" of the next workstation. Anyone sitting at the computer for which the form is destined will see it appear in their list of forms to review. You can use AJAX to make it slick and auto-updating.