Does anyone know of a clustering/load balancing software(free or commercial) that once setup, only requires you to login at one place and all hard drives are mounted together as one?
For example, currently i have 1 server which i access by going to www.myurl.com/cpanel and one hard-drive is displayed and i upload all my website files there.
If I had 100 linux or windows servers connected together using load balancers and wanted to run them as a cluster, is there software where i can just go to www.myurl.com/cpanel and once i login i will not see more than 1 hard drive, but instead i will see the total space of ALL hard-drives, so i can just upload 1 file and it will automatically be uploaded to all the hard drives?
If a software like this is not currently available, do you think it'll be possible to program something like this? Or is there a software where you put a file on your website, and website visitors download it and once they run the file and are connected to the internet, their internet connection becomes part of your web server, so when people access your website, some data and cpu usage comes from your web server and some data and cpu usage from users who downloaded the file?
You're talking about 2 different things in your question - mirrored drives and distributed storage.
There are SAN (Storage Area Network) products from EMC for example that can do things that blow your mind with the way storage is handled. There are other local disk to SAN technologies like iSCSI also.
For what you want to do, you want to mirror a folder across 100 servers. I think *nix servers have a RSYNC technology, and Windows Server 2003 R2 has File Replication Services. I do know that FRS (part of Distributed File System technology) will do exactly what you want to do and it comes out of the box in Windows Server 2003 (R2 only) and 2008.
Look at Direct Attached Storage and Storage Area Network.
From what I can tell, the DAS is cheaper as it runs over existing network infrastructure, while a SAN essentially has its own dedicated fiber network that is parallel to the regular network.
actually that wikipedia link is old.. see dell's DAS options for a better example.
Related
I have Analyzer which connects to a computer with cat5 cables . This Computer reads the data through a software called ComVisioner .ComVisioner has two Modes, one is Server Mode and Other is Client Mode A Server software acts as the engine in the system, providing one or more clients with information.
Server version is installed on a single computer . Once Server version is installed it collects data, performs calculations, produce reports and so on.
The ComVisioner client runs in the same computer as the server. Other clients can access the same single server through a network, providing that the software license allows more than one client at the same time
so there is Two client computers who access the as mentioned above .this all connection is done by Network cables . This part is fine
As License of Client is very expensive our company wants to add a OPC software so that more user can acquire data .As i have no knowledge on Opc part please suggest me How can i do it ?. what sort of software should i use ?. Can i install this software different pc with is connected in same network
There is also one more software installed in that computer which pushes the data as Modbus protocol
First, you need to make sure that the ComVisioner can give OPC data. (work like opc server). This should be indicated in the documentation.
Download the free OPC client, and make sure you can read the data (for example you can use, matrikon opc explorer or kepware quick client (I like it more, it goes together with KepServerEx, to download them you need to register)
If you can connect and see the data, then there will be no problems with access to the data. Next you need to find a solution for which Opc client suits you. Probably some SCADA system, but some good SCADA also cost a lot, and require a lot of development time.
I don't recommend you try to use modbus if there is opc. If you will use modbus you will have many problem with addressing and value format.
ps
We had a problem with expensive licenses. As a result, we solved the problem by give access for programm for clients via RDP (remote desktop connection)
Should I imagine server as a physical device like router? Or is it just a program that is on a computer? I'm confused. Please let me know. Thanks in advance
A server is a computer that provides data to other computers. It may serve data to systems on a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN) over the Internet.
Many types of servers exist, including web servers, mail servers, and file servers. Each type runs software specific to the purpose of the server. For example, a Web server may run Apache HTTP Server or Microsoft IIS, which both provide access to websites over the Internet. A mail server may run a program like Exim or iMail, which provides SMTP services for sending and receiving email. A file server might use Samba or the operating system's built-in file sharing services to share files over a network.
More about server
I have a requirement to transfer/multicast a large file about >40g of file from a server to multiple clients at the same time and this will be done for only once. Is there any good protocol to do that in Linux? I tried using UFTP, but it didn't work.
UFTP should be a good tool for this situation. If the server and clients are on the same LAN, there shouldn't be any issue with them communicating. If there are one or more routers separating them, then you would either have to configure routers to allow multicast traffic to pass or you could use UFTP's proxy servers to create a bridge between different network segments.
You could use the excellent bittorrent protocol and make it private by using Bittorent Sync.
Go to Bittorrent Sync Web Site for details.
The main advantages I see are :
It's design to transport large files (if you have a network disruption it's not a problem)
It's free
It's cross plateform : Windows, Linux (i386, x64, ARM, PowerPC), FreeBSD, Mac, Android, IOS, and more ...
It's secure (you provide the encryption keys)
It's quite simple to configure
my company wants to set up a small intranet portal on LAN. We are about 100 users at max. I am thinking about Joomla on a windows server environment with XAMPP.
Just to be safe, is XAMPP efficient for serving about 50 to 100 users ? Does it have some connection limits ? Also how about using it as a webserver for a small intranet portal.
Have your say guys.
XAMPP is "just" a collection of established applications for serving web pages. The underlaying apache can handle far more that the expected 100 users.
I haven't tried it yet, but think that maybe even the out-of-the-box configuration might be sufficient - if not you can always modify the underlaying Apache and/or MySQL database according to your needs.
XAMPP is just a handy single-click installer for Apache/MySQL/PHP which is all you need to run Joomla. This stack powers some of the largest websites on the net, so I don't think you'll run into any problems there. The specs of the server are what you should be most concerned about, but any low-range server should be able to handle that capacity without blinking.
Just be aware that the default settings used by XAMPP are specifically designed for developers working on their own local machines: there's no root password for MySQL, permissions are very relaxed, etc. Take some time to go through the config after you set it up.
You could also look at WAMP, depending on your requirements. Similar sort of thing but with the same issues that nickf stated.
Does anyone have experience deploying GWT apps to EC2?
If I were to install tomcat or apache on a ec2 instance, could I have users connect directly to a url pointing there?
Would that be cost effective, or would java hosting services be best?
Is there any downside to hosting the edge HTTP server on a regular hosting service and have that direct requests to EC2? Performance ever an issue here?
Other answers are correct but I just wanted to share the fact that we are are developing a product that is 100% EC2/S3 based and also have a pure GWT front end.
We use maven2 for builds and the excellent gwt-maven plugin. This makes it easy to produce a WAR package of our web application as output. We use Jetty but Tomcat would work just as well.
We have pound (a http accelerator/load balancer) running on the VM listening for http & https, which then forwards to requests to lighttpd (static) or jetty (app). This also simplifies SSL certificates because pound handles SSL. I've found Java servers have always been a pain to configure with SSL certs.
Yes, you can host pretty much whatever you want, as you effectively have a dedicated Linux machine at your command.
As I last recall, the basic rate for an EC2 instance, on their "low end box" worked out to around $75/month, so you can use that as a benchmark against other vendors. That also assumed that the machine is up 24x7 (since you pay for it by the hour).
The major downside of an EC2 instance is simply that it can "go away" at any time, and when it does, any data written to your instance will "go away" as well.
That means you need to set it up so that you can readily restart the server, but also you need to offline any data that you generate and wish to keep (either to one of Amazons other services, like S3, or to some other external service). That will incur some extra costs depending on volume.
Finally, you will also be billed for any traffic to the service.
The thing to compare it against is another "Virtual Server" from some other vendor. There is a lot of interesting things that can be done with EC2, but it may well be easier to go with a dedicated Virtual hosting service if you're just using a single machine.
Others have given good answers. I would have to add that you need to spend programmer time getting to know EC2's quirks and addressing them (e.g. with EBS). It's not completely trivial, and though it is useful knowledge to have and may be worth it for that reason alone, if you want to get up and running quickly with just a few servers, you should probably look at other hosted options.
On the other hand, if you plan to scale up massively enough (eventually hosting many servers on EC2) then I would highly recommend it. You have to architect a few things, but you need to do that anyways. The flexibility of on-demand computing, and the generally low price, makes this a killer platform once you reach a certain scale of operation.
You definitely can host an http server in EC2, but you need to take into consideration the following:
As mentioned before the cost can be much higher than alternative hosting solutions
Your instance (the machine you've started in EC2) can go off unexpectedly. There is no guarantee from Amazon for 24x7 availability. This mean that the data you've stored in local storage will be lost and when you've start a new instance, it will get a new IP.
To successfully host a server in EC2, you therefore need to employ some other services from Amazon. You need Elastic IP, so that you can circumvent the new IP address problem. You can also use Elastic Block Storage. This is a service that will allow you to mount in your machine a disk, that will not go away when your instance is lost.