Would it be possible/safe to run two instances of VisualSVNServer pointing to the same repo?
I've searched around and not had any luck finding anything related specifically to this question. The only reason I ask is because we have a need to enable Windows Authentication/Integration over http, and svn authentication over https. It does not seem to be an option to run both within a single instance of VisualSVNServer.
If not, do you know of alternative solution that would allow for this?
Edit: Received the following answer from VisualSVN Support
Thanks to Subversion design, repositories are ready to be accessed by several server instances simultaneously. We haven't experimented a lot with such configuration, but I think it's possible.
Am I understand properly, that you are going to store your repositories on a network storage and run two VisualSVN Server instances on different machines?
Please take care about the server.pid. file. In the current release, this file is stored in the repositories folder. So there will be a collision between two instances of VisualSVN Server. We are going to fix this problem in the upcoming release.
You can easily relocate the server.pid to another destination by adding the following command to the "C:\Program Files\VisualSVN Server\conf\httpd-custom.conf" file:
[[
PidFile "C:/Tmp/server.pid"
]]"
You can point two VisualSVN Server instances to the same repository if it stored on SMB share without any problems. It's typical configuration for active/active or active/passive cluster setups.
I wouldn't do this because as far as I know, VisualSVN brings its own web server (Apache) and SVN binaries. I would expect locking issues when running two of each on the same repo, if it's possible at all. VisualSVN probably won't install twice at all.
This sounds like a case for separate installation of SVN and Apache and custom configuration. I can't say whether what you want is possible but I would expect it is. It's probably to be fiddly, though - VisualSVN takes away a lot of configuration hassle that you have when doing the setup manually. Questions about that would be appropriate to ask on Serverfault.com.
Apart from VisualSVN, there also are other, also commercial wrappers. Maybe one of them is more flexible in this respect.
Update: Also, check this out: Supporting Multiple Repository Access Methods from the SVN book
Related
I'm new to git. I've read the well-written intro book. But gee, it's still not a trivial topic. I've been bumbling around, experiencing various problems. I realized it might be because I'm unaware of workflow, and specifically, "what are the best practices for doing what I'm trying to do?"
I started out developing a django project on my win7 with Pycharm. Great way to get the initial 95% written.
But then I need to deploy it to my production machine at PythonAnywhere.
So I created a private Github repository, pushed my win7 codebase to github.
Then in pythonAnywhere, I cloned the github repository.
For now, no others work on this project. It will not be released to the public.
Now that the server is running on PythonAnywhere, I still need to tweak settings, which is best done on the PythonAnywhere codebase side. But there are other improvements (new pages, or views) that I'd rather do inside Pycharm IDE on my win7 than in vim on python anywhere.
So I've been kind of clumsily pushing and fetching these changes. It's been kind of ham-handed, and I've managed to lose some minor changes through ignorance.
So I'm wondering if anyone can point to a relatively simple workflow that would handle the various tasks I mentioned:
1) improving functionality of the site (best done in Pycharm IDE)
2) production server issues and tweaks (best done on PythonAnywhere)
3) keeping everythign safely backed-up on Github
The other issue is that I have another django app that I want to build. It's easiest to temporarily hang it off the django project I've already built. But I'd prefer to keep it in its own repository.
So I have Original_Project, Original_App stored in Original_Repository
I want to make new_app, and have it, for the time being, run in Original_Project, but I want to version control it in New_Repository.
I think/hope that I could put a .gitignore in the Original_Repository, saying ignore the new_app/ Then I git init new_app/ as its own repository. Is that sound or mad?
You should avoid editing your code on the production server as much as possible, and never commit from the production server. If you end up having to tweaks things on the server (you shouldn't but well, shit happens and sometimes it's indeed easier to first get the code back to work on the server), then once it's working manually report your edits to your local repo, clear up the changes on the server and deploy the fixed code again. Here the github repo should be considered as the "master" repository for deployments, ie you work on your local repo, push to github, and on the server pull from github. This make sure you keep the github repo in sync.
wrt/ the "improving functionality" (aka "features") vs "server issues and tweaks" (aka "hotfixes"), git flow is a (mostly) sane workflow IMHO but that's a bit opinion-based here (some dislike it and have sensible arguments too).
Finally if you want to factor out one of your apps, the best is to have it in it's own (github) repo with all the proper python packaging stuff and make it a requirement of your main project. On your local dev environment you install it as an editable package, and for the production setup you install it as normal package pinned to the last stable version. Note that in both cases I assume you're using virtualenvs (and if you dont, well that's the very first issue you should address).
Update:
What are the downsides of of editing directly on the production server and committing from the production server?
Well quite simply a production server is not the place for coding - "production" means that you have users trying to do something with your website and they don't want to have the site breaking on them, their data lost or whatever because you are "tweaking" things. You should only deploy stable, well tested code on production, and the one and only one case where editing anything on the server might be a last resort option is when it's already broken and you want to get it back online asap whatever it takes (case of "first make it work, then make it clean").
Point is, I'm a professional developer working on projects that are business criticals and a broken site is not an option, so I'm very strict on this - but even if it's a hobby project, your users deserve some respect (at least if you expect to see them back).
A proper production chain actually involves at least three environments: your local dev environment, a staging server (which should closely mirror the production server - system, system package versions, configurations etc etc) to test out / showcase / eventually do minor config tweak, and the production server which should only ever see stable tested code.
I have always struggled with git, knowing it well enough to get thigs working, but never being sure I am doing thing well.
I would suggest installing git flow (it is probably available in your package manager if you are on Linux). Its a set of extensions that simplify a standard git worklfow. Since using it, this has pretty much been all the documentation I have needed.
https://danielkummer.github.io/git-flow-cheatsheet/
I want to work locally on my django(1.7) project and regularly deploy updates to a production server. How would you do this? I have not found anything about this in the docs. I am confused about that because it seems like many people would want to do that and there should be some kind of standard solution to this. Or am I getting the whole workflow wrong?
I should note that I'm not expecting a step-by-step guide. I am just trying to understand the concept.
Assuming you already have your deployment server setup, and all you need to do is push code to your server, then you can just use git as a form of deployment.
Digital Ocean has a good tutorial at this link https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-set-up-automatic-deployment-with-git-with-a-vps
Push sources to a git repository from a dev machine.
pull sources on a production server. Restart uwsgi/whatever.
There is no standard way of doing this, so no, it cannot be included with Django or be thoroughly described in the docs.
If you're using a PaaS how you deploy depends on the PaaS. Ditto for a container like docker, you must follow the rules of that particular container.
If you're old-school and can ssh into a server you can rsync a snapshot of the code to the correct place after everything else is taken care of: database, ports, webserver setup etc. That's what I do, and I control stuff with bash scripts utilizing a makefile.
REMOETHOST=user#yourbox
REMOTEPATH=yourpath
REMOTE=$REMOTEHOST:$REMOTEPATH
make rsync REMOTE_URI=$REMOTE
ssh $REMOTEHOST make -C $REMOTEPATH deploy
My "deploy"-action is a monster but might be as easy as something that touches the wsgi-file used in order to reload the site. My medium complex ones cleans out stale files, run collectstatic and then reloads the site. The really complex ones creates a timestamped virtualenv, cloned database and remote code tree, a new server-setup that points to this, runs connection tests on the remote and if they succeed, switches the main site to point to the new versioned site, then emails me the version that is now in production, with the git hash and timestamp.
Lots of good solutions. Heroku has a good tutorial: https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/getting-started-with-django
Check out a general guide for deploying to multiple PaaS providers here: http://www.paascheatsheet.com
I've been fortunate enough to discover django_compressor and implemented it within our stack, which deploys to many servers (Currently 6, but growing as we deploy smaller virtual machines.)
Now this is all fine and dandy if you're using django_compressor at its finest. Compressing raw CSS/JS code
However, say now I want introduce some type of pre-compiler. Let's say for this example it is LESS (css). The thought process for this is fairly simple:
Install node, npm, and the less package onto the server.
Add less to your precompilers!
COMPRESS_PRECOMPILERS = ( ('text/less', 'lessc {infile} {outfile}'), )
Now you deploy, and your server compiles the less file. Everything is fantastic!
Now let's add 8 more servers to that and you have to install node, npm, and less on each server?
This is where something doesn't seem right, and I feel like I'm missing something. I believe the Django community has run into this problem before.
My thoughts thus far have been:
Use a post-commit hook to compile the CSS on the developers machine. This means that via django_compressor, we link to the compiled static file in the HTML, and our repository contains both the compiled and non-compiled versions. My only downside to this is it ends up not using half of the benefits of django_compressor and may be tedious for developers?
Suck it up and make node, npm, and less part of the server stack.
Update
I did some additional looking around and it seems that using the COMPRESS_OFFLINE flag (or just --force) with the management command will produce an offline manifest file that does what I need (only tested locally). So setting this up with a pre-deploy hook likes to be the answer.
Of course, still open to other ideas :-)
Coupled with the tips in the comments about COMPRESS_OFFLINE, you could look at django-staticfiles' storage stuff. You can host the static files on amazon s3, for instance, so hosting it all on one static-hosting server and using that from all your servers could also be a nice solution. You wouldn't need to do anything with the static (and compressed) files on the individual servers.
Alternative solution regarding the multiple servers: I've made a custom fabric (docs.fabfile.org) script that installs/configures stuff on our servers. I've only recently started using coffeescript and less, but those two are definitively ending up in my fabfile. That solves the installation problem for me.
(Alternatives to a fabfile are things like a custom debian package with standard dependencies. Or chef or puppet or something similar.)
you can use puppet for the task
I am working with a client that demands multi-stage server setup: development server, stage server and production/live server.
Stage should be as stable as it can be to test all those new features we develop at the development server and take this to the live server in the end.
We use git and github for version controlling. I use Ubuntu server edition as the OS.
The problem is, I have never working in such multi-stage server plan. What software/projects would you recommend to do a proper way of handling such setup, especially deployment and moving a new feature developed to the stage and then to the live server ?
We use two different methods of moving code from environment to environment. The first is to use branches and triggers with our source control system (mercurial in our case, though you can do the same thing with git). The other, is to use fabric, a python library for executing shell code across a number of servers.
Using source control, you can have several main branches, like production development staging. Say you want to move a new feature into staging. I'll explain in terms of mercurial, but you can port the commands over to git and it should be fine.
hg update staging
hg merge my-new-feature
hg commit -m 'my-new-feature > staging'
hg push
You then have your remote source control server push to all of your web servers using a trigger. A trigger on each web server will then do an update and reload the web server.
To move from staging to production, it's just as easy.
hg update production
hg merge staging
hg commit -m 'staging > production'
hg push
It's not the nicest method of deployment, and it makes rolling back quite hard. But it's quick and easy to set up, and still a lot better than manually deploying each change to each server.
I won't go through fabric, as it can get quite involved. You should read their documentation so you understand what it is capable of. There are plenty of tutorials around for fabric and django. I highly recommend the fabric route as it gives you lots more control, and only involves writing some python.
There is a nice branching model for git (as it is also used by github itself for example). You can easily apply this branching model using git-flow, which is a git extension that enables you to apply some high level repository operations that fit into this model. There's also a nice blogpost about this.
I do not know what exactly you want to automize in your deployment workflow, but if you apply the model mentioned above, most of the correct version handling is done by git.
To add some further automatic processing to this, fabric is a simple but great tool, and you will find many tutorials about its usage (also in combination with git).
For handling python dependencies using virtualenv and pip is for sure a very good way to go.
If you need something more complex,eg. to handle more than one django instance on one machine and for handling system wide dependencies etc checkout puppet or chef.
Try Gondor.io or Ep.io, they both make it pretty easy (gondor especially excels in this area) to have two+ instances with very similar code, from your VCS -- and to move data back and forth. (if you need an invite, ask either in IRC, but if I recall, they're both open now)
I am trying to work out a good way to run a staging server and a production server for hosting multiple Coldfusion sites. Each site is essentially a fork of a repo, with site specific changes made to each. I am looking for a good way to have this staging server move code (upon QA approval) to the production server.
One fanciful idea involved compiling the sites each into EAR files to be run on the production server, but I cannot seem to wrap my head around Coldfusion archives, plus I cannot see any good way of automating this, especially the deployment part.
What I have done successfully before is use subversion as a go between for a site, where once a site is QA'd the code is committed and then the production server's working directory would have an SVN update run, which would then trigger a code copy from the working directory to the actual live code. This worked fine, but has many moving parts, and still required some form of server access to each server to run the commits and updates. Plus this worked for an individual site, I think it may be a nightmare to setup and maintain this architecture for multiple sites.
Ideally I would want a group of developers to have FTP access with the ability to log into some control panel to mark a site for QA, and then have a QA person check the site and mark it as stable/production worthy, and then have someone see that a site is pending and click a button to deploy the updated site. (Any of those roles could be filled by the same person mind you)
Sorry if that last part wasn't so much the question, just a framework to understand my current thought process.
Agree with #Nathan Strutz that Ant is a good tool for this purpose. Some more thoughts.
You want a repeatable build process that minimizes opportunities for deltas. With that in mind:
SVN export a build.
Tag the build in SVN.
Turn that export into a .zip, something with an installer, etc... idea being one unit to validate with a set of repeatable deployment steps.
Send the build to QA.
If QA approves deploy that build into production
Move whole code bases over as a build, rather than just changed files. This way you know what's put into place in production is the same thing that was validated. Refactor code so that configuration data is not overwritten by a new build.
As for actual production deployment, I have not come across a tool to solve the multiple servers, different code bases challenge. So I think you're best served rolling your own.
As an aside, in your situation I would think through an approach that allows for a standardized codebase, with a mechanism (i.e. an API) that allows for the customization you're describing. Otherwise managing each site as a "custom" project is very painful.
Update
Learning Ant: Ant in Action [book].
On Source Control: for the situation you describe, I would maintain a core code base and overlays per site. Export core, then site specific over it. This ensures any core updates that site specific changes don't override make it in.
Call this combination a "build". Do builds with Ant. Maintain an Ant script - or perhaps more flexibly an ant configuration file - per core & site combination. Track version number of core and site as part of a given build.
If your software is stuffed inside an installer (Nullsoft Install Shield for instance) that should be part of the build. Otherwise you should generate a .zip file (.ear is a possibility as well, but haven't seen anyone actually do this with CF). Point being one file that encompasses the whole build.
This build file is what QA should validate. So validation includes deployment, configuration and functionality testing. See my answer for deployment on how this can flow.
Deployment:
If you want to automate deployment QA should be involved as well to validate it. Meaning QA would deploy / install builds using the same process on their servers before doing a staing to production deployment.
To do this I would create something that tracks what server receives what build file and whatever credentials and connection information is necessary to make that happen. Most likely via FTP. Once transferred, the tool would then extract the build file / run the installer. This last piece is an area I would have to research as to how it's possible to let one server run commands such as extraction or installation remotely.
You should look into Ant as a migration tool. It allows you to package your build process with a simple XML file that you can run from the command line or from within Eclipse. Creating an automated build process is great because it documents the process as well as executes it the same way, every time.
Ant can handle zipping and unzipping, copying around, making backups if needed, working with your subversion repository, transferring via FTP, compressing javascript and even calling a web address if you need to do something like flush the application memory or server cache once it's installed. You may be surprised with the things you can do with Ant.
To get started, I would recommend the Ant manual as your main resource, but look into existing Ant builds as a good starting point to get you going. I have one on RIAForge for example that does some interesting stuff and calls a groovy script to do some more processing on my files during the build. If you search riaforge for build.xml files, you will come up with a great variety of them, many of which are directly for ColdFusion projects.