Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Which XMPP server would you recommend for use in Amazon Web Services, running on EC2 instances?
It should scale, with automatic (or at least easy) clustering being very useful - it's scaling should also support an XMPP server component. It would be nice if the automatic scaling could work with Amazon Auto Scaling.
Which XMPP server (or even a different cloud offering) would you use? As far as I can tell OpenFire and Ejabberd are the most popular choices, but I'm concerned they won't scale well on EC2 instances.
To my knowledge there is no XMPP server with automatic clustering.You should be aware that automatic clustering with XMPP is extremely difficult because it is a connected protocol and it cannot be totally transparent, unless you only want to support HTTP (XMPP over BOSH).
You will end up with question like: what do you do with running TCP/IP connection when you want to remove a node ? Do you want to migration session when adding a node ? What do you do with running TCP/IP connection.
ejabberd has good clustering support however and it runs extremely well on EC2 and is very stable. This is your best bet.
OpenFire to my knowledge is not an option with no real, largely available clustering support.
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
In Dotnet core, there are two built-in servers Kestrel and HTTP.sys.
I would like to know the differences between those two servers and when to use a particular server when it comes to performance, reliability, micro-service friendly, etc.
Answer: Kestrel vs. HTTP.sys from the official Microsoft docs.
See Kestrel vs. HTTP.sys from the official Microsoft docs.
Main differences are that HTTP.sys is windows only while kestrel can run on linux as well. That also means that HTTP.sys works with windows authentication "out of box" with few settings whereas kestrel needs a lot more to set it up. Performance wise they are similar with http.sys being a bit faster since it is optimized for windows. Also the base for IIS is HTTP.sys.
Reliability not only depends on the server but the infra it is on. I.E if you put both in docker with kubernetes they will be reliable and scalable since you will have containers to take care of that part.
Now i have microservices on both and they are very friendly and i use them for different purposes, environments depending on the service in question.
Also to mention that for public facing services i use reverse proxy anyway i am not familiar with how the two act in that role. Having said that Microsoft recommends HTTP.sys if you have a front facing service since it is more resilient to attacks out of box, but like I said since my services are behind a reverse proxy that handles those requests cannot verify the claims.
hope this helps a bit
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm looking for nice PaaS that could run applicatons which:
Listens to non-80 external port (25th, its a SMTP server)
Writes to the persisting filesystem
(its 2 different applications, so PaaS I'm looking for dont have to have both features)
I tried different PaaS and IaaS:
Heroku: no/no
OpenShift: no/yes
AppFog: apparently no/no
AWS: yes/yes - but its IaaS
I understand, that listening to 25th port is not really popular feature, so I'm open to host some PaaS without strict restrictions on say AWS. Is there is such?
I don't think OpenShift is going to give you exactly what you are looking for however as you have denoted you will have persistent storage.
As you have denoted port 25 is not one of the external ports that your application can bind to with OpenShift. The reason for this is because in too many situation the use of port 25 leads to accounts not complying with the Acceptable Use Policy.
However there are mail alternatives for SMTP such as the use of mailgun, this service works over port 80 and service as an SMTP service.
In this way OpenShif can meet both of your requirements (kinda).
If you are open to hosting the PaaS yourself, you can try out Cloudify. It's open-source, and your application not limited in what it can do on your instance.
Disclaimer: I work for Gigaspaces, which develops Cloudify,
You may check out http://paasify.it. It's a comparative list of current PaaS vendors that I have compiled.
As for persistent storage select 'Filesystem' under Services. Possible PaaS include Clever Cloud, HP Cloud Application Platform as a Service, Stackato and Static.
I'm not aware which do allow listening on port 25. I suggest using a addon service (e.g. mailgun), like SFERICH suggested.
Cheers Stefan
I just got into the following article and your question. I hope it can solve your demand for flexibility:
Dokku on Digital Ocean
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm friends with an owner of a small creative business (with multiple departments) and until now they have been using a dedicated server (via a 3rd party) for a lot of internal projects and they've been known to iframe a few small dev projects (like photo galleries, one page sites etc...) off and on for some of their clients (some with hi traffic sites).
They're looking to switch from the dedicated server to a cloud environment. The owner is enamored with amazon's cloud services, but still wanted some alternative options they also want the new environment to mirror the current one as much as possible (linux/centOS, PHP 5.3, mysql databases) but with the ability to scale when desired.
So the misconceptions I need cleared up and questions I have are:
1) I always assumed amazon's cloud service was more suitable for high end high traffic complex web application (Netflix, pinterest, instagram etc...) rather than the typical server use listed above. Is this correct?
2) Is it possible to mirror their current setup on amazon?
3) If number 1 is not true, but they instead chose rackspace, could they run heavy web apps like Netflix, pinterest, instagram on a rackspace cloud server if they ever decided to do something that advanced (is rackspace scaleable in the same way ec2 is)?
1) Amazon AWS is also suitable for this environment, or even smaller ones (they offer instances as small as "Micro", which are far less capable than what you are describing all the way up to GPU compute clusters).
2) Yes. That is a very common setup for an AWS-based solution. In fact, I recently migrated something similar from Rackspace to AWS.
3) #1 is true. However, you can certainly mix what runs on Rackspace and in the AWS cloud. Keep in mind latency and security issues if the two component solutions need to communicate with each other. Rackspace also has a cloud offering, but it is not as mature as Amazons.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Using Ejabberd in EC2 as an XMPP server to send real-time information to clients...
How it is possible to set up clustering so that if the load on the server gets too much, Auto Scaling will create a new EC2 instance that is part of the Ejabberd cluster?
The documentation I've read suggests that you must already have the machines and manually configure each new one to be added to the cluster. Surely though you don't have to be running redundant EC2 instances just in case?
You'll need to do this manually, however a single ejabberd server can handle quite a lot of traffic. Each server adds a significant amount of available connections to your cluster, so it's not a common task.
That said, I'd really be careful running ejabberd in EC2. I've been doing it for about a year, and we fight mnesia network partitioning pretty regularly. Clustered ejabberd servers don't work very reliably in the EC2 network.
I am installing an infrastructure based on EC2 + ejabberd and have read this post. Do not you recommend? I planned to use as backend mysqlk (in AWS RDS) for tables that store large amounts of data. What do you think?
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I was wondering if any of you know an Amazon version of cloud sites from rackspace. I know they have services similar to cloud servers and files but not this?
Basically, I'm looking for a scalable web server managed by them, *** but (this is what cloud sites can't do) I want to still be able to do things in the backend and install other apps etc.. (like my own server)?
thanks
Amazon does not offer any managed hosting services. What they provide is infrastructure-as-a-service, the barebones level services for building on top of. They offer no management services. This stuff is meant for low level developers / system administrators to build the higher level systems on, not your average web hosting customer.
Amazon's new Elastic Beanstalk offers something closer to Rackspace Cloud Sites, but is currently limited to Java sites.
I have a new Platform as a Service (SaaS) in the works to offer multiple languages/frameworks on top of AWS to the general public. Check it out...
http://www.mojoengine.com