This question might be slightly subjective, but I am unsure where else it would be better suited.
I have used Orchard on a number of projects where the server was Windows Server based - integrating with AD, SQL etc to provide a MVC based portal - like stealing candy from a toddler!
I have been exploring MonoTouch recently, and installed Orchard on OSX under ModMono as per http://docs.orchardproject.net/Documentation/Running-Orchard-on-Mono.
It all seems to run fine, and fast, but I am unsure whether to back this on a commercial venture. I have always used MySQL or MSSQL as the DB, whereas my current install is running PostgreSQL - something new (which is always good).
Does anyone know of any sites which use Orchard running on Mono, with ModMono (Apache2) and PostgreSQL?
I plan to deploy to a cloud server running CentOS and Mono to do further testing before going any further, but think it could be an exciting avenue to explore.
I can't say I know of any sites that run Orchard on Mono commercially but I do know of a lot of sites that use Mono, Postgresql and CentOS. But if it works on a Mac running Modmono and Postgresql then it should work on CentOS.
The only issues that you may face running on Linux is case sensitivity. If you do run in to case sensitivity issues when you are trying out Orchard on Linux then you may want to configure your site to use Mono IOMAP temporarily until you fix an issues with case sensitivity.
This is a very reliable and cost effective stack. It may take a bit of research and problem solving to get up and running initially but once it's running it should be very stable.
I am currently near the end of porting an application that is going to be using Mono, Postgresql and Ubuntu running on Amazon EC2. I believe that Ubuntu is better than CentOS when it comes to Mono as it is much easier to setup and seems to be better supported. You can use the badgerports repositories located here if you want to try out the latest version of Mono on Ubuntu.
Related
Currently we are using microstrategy as a reporting tool 11.1 version and using Oracle DB - micro strategy metadata, Statistics , history all installed in Oracle
now we are planning to move Db from Oracle to Postgres. just wanted to check if microstrategy support Potgres DB
Here is the list of certified and supported versions: Repositories
From personal experience I can say PostgreSQL v9,v10 and v11 runs fine as metadata repository. Tested v9-v12 as DWH too, all working without problems.
As far as I remember they didn't deliver the bundled driver in one of the MSTR-versions (2019-something), but that seems to have changed in MSTR-2020 again. Not a showstopper, but something to be aware of.
I am also running PG-11 as repo for History List too, but you definitely won't get help from support for this. OT: They even made me switch from MariaDB to MySQL for a support case (don't really blame them though, it's not certified and that's that).
My last attempt at running Statistics-Repo with PG is a long while ago and it didn't really work out of the box. Don't know what the situation is there. You might have to consider moving to PlatformAnalytics and/or MySQL(/MariaDB) for this too. EM only receives bugfixes from MSTR-2020 onwards, so this seems to be future-proof (EM discontinued from 2020 onwards?)
This mostly reflects our experience, the only certified PG version for MSTR 11.1 is PG-9 and only for the MD-Repo!
I want to host the OSM (OpenStreetMap) locally. I need the basic idea what are required for hosting the OSM and how the task can be done in a step wise manner. I have to host it in Windows7 environment.
Any kind of help will be useful.
switch2osm contains detailed instructions and requirements for setting up a OSM server. If you have a Windows system then better set up a Linux VM inside it.
A bit too old but I will just put it here for someone who is searching for the same thing.
An exact instance of OpenStreetMap can be hosted locally by following the installation guide of OpenStreetMap.
Quoting from the Link:
"These instructions are designed for setting up The Rails Port for development and testing. If you want to deploy the software for your own project, then see the notes at the end.
You can install the software directly on your machine, which is the traditional and probably best-supported approach. However, there is an alternative which may be easier: Vagrant. This installs the software into a virtual machine, which makes it easier to get a consistent development environment and may avoid installation difficulties. For Vagrant instructions, see VAGRANT.md.
These instructions are based on Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, which is the platform used by the OSMF servers. The instructions also work, with only minor amendments, for all other current Ubuntu releases, Fedora and MacOSX
We don't recommend attempting to develop or deploy this software on Windows. If you need to use Windows, then try developing this software using Ubuntu in a virtual machine, or use Vagrant."
I'm planning to build Linux web development server in virtual machine environment on Windows Virtual PC. As I don't have much experience with installing and configuring Linux web servers, I wanted to ask for some advice:
What Linux distribution do you recommend for such server? I want the virtual server to look like real hosting environment.
Do any pre-configured virtual machines for web development exist out there?
Maybe some instruction and tips on configuring?
My requirements for the server are quite standard: latest versions of Apache, MySQL, PHP, probably Python and Postgre.
Thank you.
UPDATE: OK I think I'll go with Ubuntu Server for this.
You can probably go with Ubuntu. It is easy for a beginner and there is plently of documentation on how to install a LAMP stack and later you can move on to other distros.
If you are looking for pre-configured machines, then you can have a look at VMWare Appliances
For the distribution I would recommend Ubuntu - you can add all the server software you want from their repositories.
For a virtual machine I'd recommend Ubuntu Server Edition JeOS, as that won't have any un-needed software on it.
Debian Lenny - rock solid stability & the most package support
I'm sure you can find some
Use prefork-worker apache, MySQL 5/PHP 5, Postgres 8.4.
There are lots of prebuilt vmware images that you can use. You might also consider looking at something like Amazon EC2 for which there are lots of off the shelf images.
I would also suggest Ubuntu server as a base OS.
Incidentally there are other virtualisation options in case Virtual PC doesn't recognise those prebuilt image formats (I think those formats are more standardised and interoperable these days, but not sure)...e.g. there is vmware, and there is virtualbox.org
Does it need to be in Linux straight away? You can run (Apache et al) XAMPP locally and get it up and running in 5 minutes.
I'm currently testing Memcached in a Windows machine and we are planning to use it in production while Microsoft Velocity is still in CTP. It is running well so I believe that Memcached for Windows will do well when our site is already in production. I'm reading some blogs pertaining to this issue and some of them just mentioned that it must not yet be used in production.
If there are issues, please tell why? And please, if you have any links about this matter, just post it here. Thanks.
There is no official release of memcached on Windows. We're working on it right now, but unless you're pulling from a dev branch or you've downloaded a pre-release, you've definitely got an unsupported version with a large number of bugs and missing features from the last couple of years.
I've been using memcached in production for several years now (since early 2008). We're currently using a 12-instance cluster and it absolutely hums. I would recommend memcached any day of the week.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Which OS do you prefer to program on? Client or Server
There is a school of though that if you are doing (mostly) web programming (or other server based code), you should use a server OS for your dev machine, since that's closer to the environment where your app will be running.
Update: I should add, this is really directed to the Windows crowd
OK, I know you're mainly talking about windows but...
I used to develop on windows for deployment on *nix servers. Sure there were lots of gotchas with this way of working, but you just kind of get used to it.
In October 2005 I switched to Linux, initially as an experiment, but I never went back. There was a steep learning curve. I thought I knew *nix pretty well after 10 years of dealing with it, but I knew nothing compared with the amount I learned using it on my desktop machine.
Workflow has been so much smoother developing and deploying to similar platforms.
More recently, we have even started to pick servers running Ubuntu server, so that they most closely match our Ubuntu desktop development machines.
If you are talking about the difference between a desktop and a server edition, I'd guess you needn't worry about it. If you're developing on one OS for deployment on another, I'd consider changing your desktop platform.
There is a school of though that if you are doing (mostly) web programming (or other server based code), you should use a server OS for your dev machine
I think that applies more to 'system programmers' rather than web 'application programmers'. Why? There is definitely great value in knowing the platform intimately, like one would get in living with the OS, etc. day in and day out. But not everyone can or should need to go there.
While my main production environment is RHEL4, Linux just does not work for me on the desktop--in fact, it drives me crazy. I find working on OSX close enough, though. And I just love working on my Mac rather than an XP box.
I'm doing the Java thing, and the "write once, run everywhere" hype actually works for me. :)
Update: I should add, this is really directed to the Windows crowd
Minute late, bit short ;) Maybe you should edit the title too...
It seems like the question is more about whether to use the server or client version of the same OS. So my answer is this: the client should be just fine. You can develop and test web applications of many flavors on client versions of Windows, OS X, and Linux. OS X and Linux obviously make Apache-based apps a little easier by coming with Apache pre-installed, but a download of XAMPP or WAMPP can quickly turn a Windows box into a solid development platform for LAMP applications, as well.
And if you're doing ASP.NET, your development tools (if you're using something in the Visual Studio line) have test server mechanisms built in.
So unless you have some other need for wanting the server version, I would stick with the client. It's less money, and you really don't need the server version.
The client vs. server OS issue is only relevant on MS platforms. And even there it depends on what you're developing for.
As far as I understand for Sharepoint development you need a server OS to run your code
If you're just doing vanilla ASP.Net stuff then it's mostly personal taste.
Edit
As Tyler commented, you can run MOSS/WSS on Vista but it's not supported. Or you could develop on a client OS and run sharepoint on a server OS in a VM.
Regardless of the operating system you're actually talking about, it shouldn't matter. Most applications you might write won't need to worry about the differences (if there indeed are any). Only in rare cases might you use some specific functionality that might only be available on a "server" edition of your OS.
There are other considerations, for example Windows server editions are tuned by default to give less priority and attention to desktop programs, and more attention to things like the file cache. Personally, I would always choose a "client" edition of my chosen OS.
Personally I use Windows Vista but that's because it's what I like and I can use it well. But in all honesty it doesn't matter, your OS should be something you are comfortable in and has the tools you need to be productive.
I would say your test environment is the one you need to have as close to your production environment as possible. I write in RoR on Vista but test it in a Linux VM setup the same as my web server and at work we have a Win2k3 server with IIS6 installed to test our .Net sites on but I develop on Vista using IIS7.
I use Windows Server 2003 set up as a workstation.This is the guide i have used for several years. Really like it.
This is going to be a bit of a weird answer but I'm a big fan of Windows 2008 and Hyper-V, as a workstation (I know). Essentially I'll only install Office like software on my workstation and all the development will be in Virtual Machines.
Assuming there's no Win2k8/Hyper-V availiable I'd gladly settle for some old WinXP (but w/Virtual PC).
Hyper-V allows you to get great performance out of any .VHD VM that you run. Both Virtual PC and Virtual Server are free (as in beer) and you can set up a ton of infrastructure that allows you to re-purpose virtual machines (ie. Base Machines, Differencing Disks, Undo Disks). The .VHDs are also interchangeable so you can re-host a previously enjoyed .VHD for other developers to enjoy on some virtual server, OR they can take a copy of it, rename the virtual machine and enjoy your ready-to-go environment with some Virtual PC!
This is awesome for bringing team members up to speed (environment wise) in less than 10 min. YOu can also use it to VERY QUICKLY provision machines that would otherwise take days to setup/configure.
Never mind the much better ability to test from different OS', or be able to roll back changes using Undo disks, VMs are a life saver! Start virtualizing people!
For some of the great benefits of Virtual Machines/Differencing Disks consider this post by Andrew Connell.