For example, I have a website with various types of information. If that goes down I have a copy of the same website the users use on a local webserver, like Apache or IIS on the client. They use this local version until the Internet version returns. They can have no downtime, in other words.
The problem is that over time the Internet version will change while the client versions will remain the same unless I touch each client's machine to make the updates. I don't want to do that.
Is there a good way to keep my client up to date so that when I make a change on the server the client gets a copy so they can run it locally if needs be?
Thank you.
EDIT: do you think maybe using SVN and timely running of the update by the clients would work?
EDIT: they'll never ever submit anything. It's just so I don't have to update the client by hand, manually going to the machine. they're webpages that run in case the main server is down.
I will go for Git over SVN because of its distributed nature. Gives you multiple copies of code; use it along with this comment's solution:
Making git auto-commit
to autocommit.
Why not use something like HTTrack to make local copies of your actual internet site on each machine, rather then trying to do a separate deployment. That way you'll automatically stay in sync.
This has the advantage that if, at some point, part of your website is updated dynamically from a database, the user will still be able to have a static copy of the resulting site that is up-to-date.
There are tools like rsync which you can use periodically to sync the changes.
Related
Sites that use more than one server must have some way to deal with pushing updates to all their webservers without having to individually transfer files to each server.
I am looking for a solution to managing multiple servers on multiple machines but being able to push updates to them without having to manually transfer files to each instance.
I'm not sure if this is the right place for the question but if not please link me to a better suited site.
Thanks.
Google for chef & puppet to get you started. (I am on a small phone, and it is impractical for me to look up the URL)
for a less comprehensive solution, you could use rsync..
Please excuse a newbie question, but I've always used SVN and more recently, Git. Just now am touching TFS for the first time.
If I have two different machines that I work on regularly, can I safely keep the project files in sync using something like Dropbox/Sugarsync/Skydrive?
Are there any pros/cons to be aware of?
(I know that some of you might ask something like why not just checkout on the other machine. Just trying to save a step. I want to just pick up the other machine and do what I need to do without having to check out anything.)
TFS workspaces contain information about the machine name and user that created them, however if you're using local workspaces and you're not putting any server-side locks on files then I suppose you could sync them via dropbox and it should probably work just fine.
That said, I'd never recommend it.
You're not only going to sync all your code but also all the binaries that you're producing each and every time you compile, plus you won't have any change history between machines and you need to keep monitoring the drop box app to make sure things have synced fully before switching machines.
If you want to move changes between two machines I'd recommend using shelvesets. It only takes a few seconds to do and you'll have a more explicit update process between machines. You can be sure of what is happening in your code on each machine and you have an implicit rollback point if you realise you put something in the shelveset you didn't want.
It seems rather pointless to have everybody creating the same client for a project in Perforce, so, is there any one one could create a "public" client in Perforce from where everybody could sync from?
Edit: I meant clients like the ones you create in Perforce from a client spec
It's easier to understand the architecture, I believe, if you use the term 'workspace' rather than 'client'. Perforce applications manage files in a designated area of your local disk, called your workspace. As the name implies, your workspace is where you do most of your work. You can have more than one client workspace, even on the same workstation.
Since two different users are generally working independently, on separate workstations or laptops, they each need their own copy of the code, and they each need their own workspace so that they can control when they sync up with the changes in the server.
If you and I try to share a single copy of the code, on a single workstation, we'll find ourselves quickly confused about whose changes are whose; it's much easier for us to work independently, and to merge our changes as separate submissions to the server.
If the issue in your case is that client definitions are complex, with very intricate view definitions, then you may wish to investigate the 'template client' feature: set up a single master client with the view and options that you prefer, and then your other users can use 'client -t' to create workspace definitions that copy the view and options details from the template client.
It's possible to do this, but not advisable. Since Perforce keeps a server-side record of what files are synced to each client, you could run into a situation where:
User Fred syncs using the shared client and gets a fresh set of files.
Before any changes are committed, user Jim syncs using the shared client and gets nothing because the Perforce server thinks that the client already has an up to date set of files.
Jim could get around this using "p4 sync -f" which will force all the latest files to be synced to his workspace, but that's a kludge around the way Perforce is designed to be used.
Perforce clients are very lightweight in terms of the resources they take up on the server, so it's better not to have shared clients.
I tried to find a more complete explanation of why clients should not be shared in the online Perforce documentation, but it's not very helpful. The book "Practical Perforce" has the best overview I've seen if you happen to have a copy around.
Use a template workspace as Bryan mentioned, or consider using streams. In the streams framework you define the stream view (composition) once, and workspaces are generated automatically.
p4 sync -f is too slow. Because firstly it will delete all the files in your local and then reload the files from central depot! there is a tricky way to do. It is to create a havelist and do sync, when wanting do sync -f. details is 1,get the clientspec, 2, save it to local. 3, delete the client 4, create a same client using the saved clientspec. Therefore we save the time for delete local files.
I'm testing out Microsoft Sync Framework to try and see if it'll be suitable for a task that I'm working on. One of the things I'd like to be able to do is to have the option to not just send changed files, but instead to send all of the files (for example, if I'm syncing to a client machine for the first time, and so want to send all files).
I can't seem to find an example of this in the documentation, so any advice would be welcome.
if you're synching for the first time, then there is nothing special to configure as it will sync everything.
if you've already synched and want to re-send all files regardless of whether they've changed or not, just delete the metadata file and that should remove all knowledge of what has been synched.
i know this is an often asked question on these boards. And usually the question has been about how to manage the changes being made to the database before you even get around to deploy them.Mostly the answer has been to script the database and save it under sourcecontrol and then any additional updates are saved as scripts under version control too.(ex. Tool to upgrade SQL Express database after deployment)
my question is when is it best to apply the database updates , in the installer or when the new version first runs and connects to the database? note this is a WinApp that is deployed to customers each have their own databases.
One thing to add to the script: Back up the database (or at least the tables you're changing!) before applying the changes.
As a user I think I'd prefer it happens during the install, and going a little further that the installer can roll itself back in the event of a failure. My thinking here is that if I am installing an update, I'd like to know when the update is done that it actually is done and has succeeded. I don't want a message coming up the next time I run it informing me that something failed and I've potentially lost all my data. I would assume that a system admin would probably also appreciate install time feedback (of course, that doesn't matter if your web app isn't something that will be installed on a network). Also, as ראובן said, backing up the database would be a nice convenience.
You haven't said much about the architecture of the application, but since an installer is involved I assume it's a client/server application.
If you have a server installer, that's where you want to put it, since the database structure is only going to change once. Since the client installers are going to need to know about the change, it would be nice to have a way to detect the database version change, and for the old client to be able to download the client update from the server automatically and apply it.
If you only have a client installer, I still think it's better to put it there (maybe as a custom action that fires off the executable for updating the database). But it really isn't going to matter, because conceptually one installer or first-time user of the new version is going to have to fire off the changes to the database anyway. The database changes are going to put structural locks on the database so, in practical terms, everyone is going to have to be kicked off the system at that time for the database update to be applied.
Of course, this is all BS if it's not client-server.