I just executed installutil on a DLL in which custom performance counters are installed. I installed 2 categories but then realized I had an issue with the first category, so I deleted the category but before deleting I ran an asp.net app against to make sure it was working.
The issue is after deleting the category and then recreating the application is logging to the custom perfmon counter but the values never get updated.
The second custom category works fine and counter is getting populated. I can see both categories within perfmon but noticed that the first category counters never get updated when running an asp.net against it.
Has anyone run into this issue. Do I need to delete the existing instance? I'm trying to avoid a reboot of the machine.
depending on how you install the counter, (assuming transacted installation let's say...) perf counters can get "orphaned".
IMHO this is because perf counters seem to get installed in the Reg and "elsewhere" <--still trying to find out where else perf counter info gets stored.
In some cases, the regkeys get built appropriately and so register as appropriate but the OS "elsewhere" location is not properly built out. It's almost like there is a perfcounter cache somewhere. ( comments anyone?)
So in summary after installation run lodctr /R from the commandline with the appropriate perms and this "seems" to solve the issue for most installations. I would be interested to see what others say about this as the generally available documentation (i.e. MS) SUCKS beyond belief on this topic...
grrr.
Related
So in my company we have this huge website project in Visual Basic. On this problem we have two parts involved, the admin, running at one port in local, and the website, running on another port.
The problem I have is that when I change a user's property in admin, it calls the function to save the user and adds the changes to the database. After that, we run a HttpRuntime.Cache.Remove(key) and it is removed successfully. BUT when the website part tries to get the user from cache (before doing so from the database), it gets it successfully, even though it was removed previously. So my question is if this is a thing, if it's possible that even though using the same code, there are 2 different caches, I've done several tests and the cache is removed successfully from the admin part, it's definetly not a code problem.
So apparently, that's how it works. If the same project has 2 or more applications running at the same time, each one has its own cache, even if they share the code that removes or adds things to cache. There is no mistake, the answer would be to create a function that clears the cache from the other applications.
We've been using TFS since around 2009 when we installed TFS2008. We upgraded to TFS2010 at some point and we've been using it for source control, work item management, builds etc.
Our TFSVersionControl.mdf file is 287,120,000 KB (273GB). We ran some queries and found that our tbl_BuildInformationField table is massive. It has 1,358,430,452 rows which takes up 150,988,624 KB (143GB). We have multiple active products over multiple active builds which more than one solution per build and the solutions aren't free of warning messages.
My questions:
Is it possible to stop MSBuild from spamming the
tbl_BuildInformationField table so much? I.e. only write errors and
general build information and not all the warnings for every
project?
Is there a way to purge or clean up old data from this
table?
Is 273GB for 4 years of TFS use an average size?
Is 143GB for tbl_BuildInformationField a "normal" size?
The table holds the values and output of build process. Take note that build retention policy doesnt actualy delete the build object like everything else in TFS the object is marked deleted and only public visibility and drop location is cleared.
I would suggest if you have retainened same build definitions for very long time (when build definition is deleted the related objects get removed as well) you should query for build info including deleted ones using TFS api, the same api will also alow you to remove them for good. Deleting build definitions probably will not work and will fail with timeout error.
You can consult the following:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/adamroot/archive/2009/06/12/working-with-deleted-build-data-in-team-foundation-server-2010-beta-1.aspx
I am trying to get this IndexedDB stuff working in a Metro (Windows 8) app, using JS.
I thought I was good, but then I ran the WACK tool a couple of times, just to see if I ran into any issues.
After these tests the IndexedDB.open call no longer opens my database (which has 7 entries in it) instead it fires onupgradeneeded, and gives me a blank (new) database (since I create an object store in the onupgradeneeded handler).
I did not change my version number, I did not change the database name. So I am guessing the applications domain somehow changed during the WACK tests.
Does anyone now how to get my database domain back?
One of the things the WACK test probably does is doing a fresh install of the app checking if everything goes fine. So when the app is installed for the first time you have to provide a creation of the database, this is done in the onupgradeneeded event.
I think you forgot to provide this, and that is why he creates a new blank database. Instead of a new database with the required structure.
I'm trying to configure a set of build configurations in TeamCity 6 and am trying to model a specific requirement in the cleanest possible manner way enabled by TeamCity.
I have a set of acceptance tests (around 4-8 suites of tests grouped by the functional area of the system they pertain to) that I wish to run in parallel (I'll model them as build configurations so they can be distributed across a set of agents).
From my initial research, it seems that having a AcceptanceTests meta-build config that pulls in the set of individual Acceptance test configs via Snapshot dependencies should do the trick. Then all I have to do is say that my Commit build config should trigger AcceptanceTests and they'll all get pulled in. So, lets say I also have AcceptanceSuiteA, AcceptanceSuiteB and AcceptanceSuiteC
So far, so good (I know I could also turn it around the other way and cause the Commit config to trigger AcceptanceSuiteA, AcceptanceSuiteB and AcceptanceSuiteC - problem there is I need to manually aggregate the results to determine the overall success of the acceptance tests as a whole).
The complicating bit is that while AcceptanceSuiteC just needs some Commit artifacts and can then live on it's own, AcceptanceSuiteA and AcceptanceSuiteB need to:
DeploySite (lets say it takes 2 minutes and I cant afford to spin up a completely isolated one just for this run)
Run tests against the deployed site
The problem is that I need to be able to ensure that:
the website only gets configured once
The website does not get clobbered while the two suites are running
If I set up DeploySite as a build config and have AcceptanceSuiteA and AcceptanceSuiteB pull it in as a snapshot dependency, AFAICT:
a subsequent or parallel run of AcceptanceSuiteB could trigger another DeploySite which would clobber the deployment that AcceptanceSuiteA and/or AcceptanceSuiteB are in the middle of using.
While I can say Limit the number of simultaneously running builds to force only one to happen at a time, I need to have one at a time and not while the dependent pieces are still running.
Is there a way in TeamCity to model such a hierarchy?
EDIT: Ideas:-
A crap solution is that DeploySite could set a 'in use flag' marker and then have the AcceptanceTests config clear that flag [after AcceptanceSuiteA and AcceptanceSuiteB have completed]. The problem then becomes one of having the next DeploySite down the pipeline wait until said gate has been opened again (Doing a blocking wait within the build, doesnt feel right - I want it to be flagged as 'not yet started' rather than looking like it's taking a long time to do something). However this sort of stuff a flag over here and have this bit check it is the sort of mutable state / flakiness smell I'm trying to get away from.
EDIT 2: if I could programmatically alter the agent configuration, I could set Agent Requirements to require InUse=false and then set the flag when a deploy starts and clear it after the tests have run
Seems you go look on the Jetbrains Devnet and YouTrack tracker first and remember to use the magic word clobber in your search.
Then you install groovy-plug and use the StartBuildPrecondition facility
To use the feature, add system.locks.readLock. or system.locks.writeLock. property to the build configuration.
The build with writeLock will only start when there are no builds running with read or write locks of the same name.
The build with readLock will only start when there are no builds running with write lock of the same name.
therein to manage the fact that the dependent configs 'read' and the DeploySite config 'writes' the shared item.
(This is not a full productised solution hence the tracker item remains open)
EDIT: And I still dont know whether the lock should be under Build Parameters|System Properties and what the exact name format should be, is it locks.writeLock.MYLOCKNAME (i.e., show up in config with reference syntax %system.locks.writeLock.MYLOCKNAME%) ?
Other puzzlers are: how does one manage giving builds triggered by build completion of a writeLock task read access - does the lock get dropped until the next one picks up (which would allow another writer in) - or is it necessary to have something queue up the parent and child dependency at the same time ?
I'm working on creating a self updating application and one issue I'm running into on Vista and Windows 7 is needing to have admin privileges in order to update the client. I've run into issues with clients that have their users running under restricted permissions and they would have to have IT log onto every machine that needed to update the client since the users were not able to.
A possible work around I'm considering is to have the launcher application installed into Program Files as normal, and having the real application that it updates installed in the users documents somewhere, so that they could update and run new versions without IT becoming involved.
I'm wondering what potential gotchas I'm missing here or what I should be aware of before heading down this path. I'm aware that click-once does something very similar, and I'd be using it, except I need the ability to do silent updates, without any user interaction.
This is how it is supposed to be. The last thing most IT departments want is a user randomly updating a piece of software. This could have all sorts of unintentional side effects such as incompatibility with the older version's files, new and possibly insecure functionality, etc. This is why IT departments disable Windows Update and do their updates manually in a controlled fashion.
If the users want an updated version of the software they should be requesting it from their IT department. Those computers and infrastructure don't belong to them, they're simply borrowing time on them from the company they work for so they can do their job.
Is there an issue with having only one installation of your program? Is it particularly large, for example?
Do you require admin privileges to run your program?
If not, odds are you don't need the Program Files folder.
I suggest you forgo installing to Program Files entirely and just install your program into the user's folder system at <userfolder>\AppData\ProgramName.
If you happen to be using .NET, look into the ClickOnce deployment mechanism. It's got a great self-updating feature that'd probably make your life a lot easier.
Edit: Just saw your last sentence. ClickOnce can force the user to update.
A couple of things:
If you decide to move your app to some place in documents, make sure that your application writes data transparently to where your program is installed, e.g. if there are hard coded paths anywhere in the code that are pointing to bad places. Perhaps this is not an issue for you, but might be something to keep in mind.
We solved this in pretty much the same way when we decided to implement a "live update" feature. But instead we installed a service which is running with administrator rights. This service in turn can run installers once the program needs to be updated. With this type of solution you don't even have to move your applicaton out of program files.
Cheers !
Edit:
Another neat thing with having a service running as administrator. Is that you could create a named pipe communication with it and have it do things for you, like you wouldn't be able to do as a normal user.
A loader stub is a good way to go. The only gotcha is when you have to update the loader; the same initial problem applies (though that should be pretty infrequent).
One problem that I can think of off the top of my head is that you're stepping outside the entire idea of keeping things more "secure." Since your executable exists in a location that should be completely accessible to a non-administrator, it's possible that something else could slam your exe thus subverting security.
You can probably leverage AppLocker. It may only be for Win7 though I'm not running Vista any more. ;)