Background for the question (if interested): I'm looking at possibly using OpenShift Enterprise or Origin to implement a private cloud, to run various in-house enterprise applications (some of which will not be web apps). If I can't adjust the resources a gear uses, then I probably can't use this PaaS solution, since some of my apps require gigabytes of RAM, and access to a SAN.
With Openshift Enterprise and Origin you can create custom gear profiles.
Origin: http://openshift.github.io/documentation/oo_administration_guide.html#user-resource-management
Enterprise: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/OpenShift_Enterprise/2/html/Administration_Guide/chap-Resource_Management.html#Adding_New_Gear_Profiles
Related
I am building a UWP app that targets both x86, x64 and ARM platforms. I want to replace the current implementation that uses Azure for the backed (an App Service and an SQL Server) because of the high price and because my Pay-As-You-Go subscription does not allow me to set a spending limit.
I thought about using a local database but I don't know if that could be a solution since I want the user to be able to have his data synced on both PC and phone for example. I am also ok with renouncing the idea of a structured database in favor of structured files (like xml) if I can find a way to keep them somewhere in the cloud (and then I can read/write them from the client app - no need for App Service).
Are there any free, non-trial alternatives to Azure? Or should I look more into the file storage implementation? Thanks in advance.
Instead of Azure you could use another web hosting solution to publish you API. Azure also offers small free plans that might be sufficient.
An alternative would be to request access and store/sync data to user's OneDrive. Each logged in user with Microsoft Account should have OneDrive storage available so this is a good middle-ground, which is still free for you. A nice introduction to this can be found in this article.
UWP also offers RoamingFolder where you can store small files that are synced across the devices that you use. Unfortunately this is less reliable because you are not able to control when the sync happens and cannot resolve conflicts.
I have successfully migrated to another cloud platform: Heroku. In my opinion, at least for small apps, Heroku offers the best solution both technology-wise and price-wise.
I am now able to have a webservice hosted for free in the cloud, without worring about traffic and number of requests. Of course you can scale up if you want better performance, but you can start with a free plan. Also, I have a postgressql db hosted also in the cloud, also for free (up until 10 000 records, and it will be just 9$/month if I want to upgrade to 10 milion). One can never found an offer like this free on Azure.
I had to learn a bit of Node.js (there are a lot of languages Heroku supports for backend services, but .Net is not one of them) but it was totally worth it!
Another option that is now starting to gain more and more popularity is FireBase. I will certantly also check that out for my future apps.
We're planning to develop a web based Healthcare Practice Management System. Due to HIPAA we're requested to deploy the app in our own premises. Our company is relatively small currently we have only software engineers and no devops engineers but still we want to develop the application to support horizontal scaling(adding more servers).
Planned to use:
Python3 (Django)
PostgreSQL
I'm looking for something like AppScale but with the freedom of choosing our own runtime, database and frameworks.
In other words from the software engineer's perspective:
Should provide an easy way to deploy django application
Should have web based dashboard to monitor and control(like AppScale)
Should make load balancing simple (app and database)
AppScale implements the Google App Engine APIs which, IMHO, make it super easy to develop web apps quickly and efficiently.
On top of that, you get auto-scaling, load balancing, and the ability to deploy on-premises and plug in any third-party library you need.
AppScale already comes with a dashboard and will soon be launching a new management service for your AppScale deployment(s).
If you're not particularly hung up on Python3 and PostgreSQL, all of the above seem to cover your requirements.
It's worth noting that opting for the GAE model means you opt for NoSQL and, so, postgres is probably not the best option.
Disclaimer: I'm part of the AppScale team and we're already helping companies develop and deliver their apps in the HIPAA compliance realm.
I chose Kubernetes which is a container orchestration technology specifically designed for Docker and also found that scaling is not just the responsibility of platform that the app is deployed on but also its depends on how the app is designed and coded. For that The Twelve-Factor App methodology is really helpful.
But I can't deploy database on Kubernetes because its not recommended by Kelsey Hightower(author of Kubernetes Up and Running) in his talk. So, for now I chose to deploy my database on a VM.
I am looking for a "free" IaaS service as an alternative to EC2 which will let me SSH into a system with full user permissions (create/delete files, install services, libraries and applications from the repository).
Tried OpenShift but ended up leaving due to strict permission policy on the SSH. Heroku, dotCloud, CloudFoundry.com, Stackato are PaaS providers. Rackspace and Linode might have what I need but are not free.
Is my own home server or EC2 are the only two options that I have? For the curious, I want to deploy my entire .vim folder and .vimc file for development on the cloud from a computer when I am not at home.
It seems like you want something for free that is not provided anywhere for free. I know its a shame, but it is reasonable that companies would charge for such a thing. Given that you want it for free I am guessing that you don't need much power or anything large scale. In that case I would look into the cheaper end of Virtual Private servers or a micro instance on EC2. VPS servers start at around $20 a month and a micro server starts at $14. Of course for the microserver you will have to pay a little extra for bandwidth and probably and EBS volume. Additionally AWS offers a free tier which pretty much allows you to run a micro instance with EBS for the first year.
We are a very small mobile company (building an application for the iphone) and we are currently considering hosting services. We are currently leaning towards Amazon's hosting/web services. Accordingly, I have some questions:
1) Can I create an admin account on AWS and assign user accounts to developers that should have access to most (but not all) features.
2) Do we need to learn / use AWS APIs in the development of our product? I don't like the
idea of having to create hooks into a hosting service.
3) It looks like the pricing for AWS scales with usage. So, since we are in development and have only developers accessing the server right now, am I right that the cost will be quite low if anything?
4) How does AWS do version management? We have several developers scattered throughout the country. Each will need to checkout the the recent build from the server for development
on his local box. Basically, something like SVN. Is this possible?
5) I am guessing we need something like a dev, svn, and production server? Is this right? If so, how do I set this up and find out the associated costs?
6) We are considering a few database options, among them NoSQL and Neo4j - will we be able to do this using AWS? The server language will be Java.
Thanks for your time.
To answer your questions:
Yes, kind of. There is Identity and Access Management offered by AWS, but it's not the easiest solution to use. Having said that, it can allow you to lock down some of the access activities on an account so that you have some control over your users. I would say that AWS is still very much a single-user environment for server administrators.
You could get away using only the management console. Your use of scripting may only be required if you want to run batch or periodic activities (eg. take a snapshot of all machines at 2am every night).
Costs for EC2 are low, especially for the Micro machine sizes. But keep in mind that the idea of cloud computing is the availability of on-demand resources for short term use. If you run dev machines needlessly over night then you will still be paying! And if someone launches an Extra Large machine (or 30 machine instances) then you will suddenly find yourself with bigger bills than expected.
(5. and 6. as well) Amazon EC2 is really about issuing you the boxes. What you do thereafter is fully up to you. You can create snapshots daily of your machines, you can deploy SVN and noSQL etc. etc.
I've been seriously into EC2 for a while now, and lots of companies are starting to look at the idea you propose. There are benefits to giving staff on-demand compute power, without having to manage any infrastructure in-house. But I will re-iterate my first point that EC2 is very much a single-user, server administration environment, which doesn't lend itself to being used as a dev playground without additional tools. (Or at least it becomes a challenging task if you have several devs spread around in your company).
I own a business that helps companies use EC2 for dev/lab/playground type of environments. I won't directly flog it here, but will show a quick demo we just put on DropBox: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16347737/RequestEC2Machines.html Feel free to request a machine to see how adding process to EC2 can help meet your goals.
I run/develop a website using Amazon EC2 & SimpleDB and I have some comments for you on your questions
Hi.
We are a very small mobile company (building an application for the iphone) and we are currently considering hosting services. We are currently leaning towards Amazon's hosting/web services. Accordingly, I have some questions:
1) Can I create an admin account on
AWS and assign user accounts to
developers that should have access to
most (but not all) features.
In my experience, there doesn't seem to be a direct correspondence between Amazon users and users on a single instance. An instance's root account is connected to the amazon account indirectly through a key pair. Although, I must say that I haven't explored this question in detail.
2) Do we need to learn / use AWS APIs in the development of our product? I don't like the > idea of having to create hooks into a hosting service.
I manage everything through their web console and Eclipse IDE plugins. I've never had to touch the API yet for development and deployment.
3) It looks like the pricing for AWS scales with usage. So, since we are in
development and have only developers accessing the server right now, am
I right that the cost will be quite low if anything?
Micro instances cost the lowest and the cost is pretty good if you're just starting an instance for a couple of hours and then stopping it. I never think twice about starting a micro instance to try out something new
4) How does AWS do version management? We have several developers
scattered throughout the country. Each will need to checkout the the recent
build from the server for development on his local box. Basically, something like SVN.
Is this possible?
I haven't seen this feature being offered directly by Amazon. You can of course keep an instance always on for your repository with backups
5) I am guessing we need something like a dev, svn, and production server?
Is this right? If so, how do I set this up and find out the associated costs?
EC Pricing - http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/
Amazon Simple Monthly Calculator - http://calculator.s3.amazonaws.com/calc5.html
6) We are considering a few database options, among them NoSQL and Neo4j -
will we be able to do this using AWS? The server language will be Java.
Amazon instances can be what you want them to be, hence you can either use a pre-configured ami to launch an instance or start off with a bare bones Ubuntu Server or Windows Server e.g. and build a system with what you want. You can then save the snapshot of that system to launch more in the future or to re-launch if your instance crashes
I use Linux as primary OS. I need some suggestions regarding how should I set up my desktop and development. I do work on mostly .Net and Drupal, but some time on other lamp products and C/C++, Qt. I'm also interested in mobile (android..) and embedded development.
Currently I install everything on my main OS, even I use it a little. I use VMs a little (for lamp server).
Should I use separate VM for each kind of development (like one for .Net/Mono, another C++, one for mobile and one for db only, one for xyz things etc)
Keep primary development environment on main os and move others in VM.
main os should be messed up
keep things easy to organize (must)
performance should be optimal (optimal settings for best performance of components)
I'm interested to know how others' are doing.
There are both pros and cons with VM's.
Pros:
portability: you can move image to
different server
easy backup (but lengthy)
replication (new member joins team)
Cons
performance
hardware requirements
size of backups (20-40 GB per VM ...)
management of backed up images (what is the difference is not obvious)
keeping all images up to date
(patching / Windows updates)
For your scenario, I would create base VM with core OS and shared components (Web server, database), replicated it and installed specific tools into separate VM. If you combine tools within VM, you may end up with same mess as in case of using base OS - the advantage is that it is much easier to get rid of it ;-)
Optimal performance != using VMs
if you need to use VMs anyway, then yes: it could be better to use a separate VM for each thing that need one, unless you need more than one at once
Now that OCI containers are stable and well supported, using those through docker, podman or other similar tool is an increasingly popular option.
They are isolated, but under the same kernel, so:
they are almost as portable as virtual machines,
like virtual machines they can have their own virtual IP addresses, so they can run services not visible from the outside and without occupying port on the host, but
they don't reserve any extra space on disk or in memory like virtual machines and
they are not slowed by any virtualization layers and
mounting directories from the host is easy and does not require any special support.
The usual approach is to have the checkout in the developer's normal home directory and mount it into containers for building, testing and running.
Also building in containers is now supported by Remote Development extension for Visual Studio Code