Related
Openshift pricing model states that you can have 3 gears in the free tier.
Other services normally explain their free tiers in number of "web workers" that you can have.
What is an openshift's gear exactly then? I know that you can install a different programming environment in each gear, but if you install the same one (let's say: ruby) in all your 3 free-tier gears, do you have 3 web-workers running at the same time? (As in: improving scalability and redundancy; are they load-balanced?)
{disclosure: I work as an Developer Evangelist on OpenShift}
We also put a big effort into explaining our pricing in terms developers can understand. Please look at the middle of the pricing page:
https://www.openshift.com/products/pricing
There is a section on how gears work. In that section you can see we can show what we load tested to give you a good starting point for what resources a normal Drupal application should be able to use. I find this easier than how many opteron servers I get.
Remember this is just an estimate, and your mileage may vary, but I think it is easier to understand.
We would love to see other people do load testing with other frameworks or applications and give us their feedback.
Gears can be thought of as equivalents to "web workers" however gears is better described as a unit (collection of resources).
In the OpenShift free tier you only have small gears (512MB memory, 1GB HDD, etc.) So the small gear is a unit of resources that you have for you to use.
https://www.openshift.com/pricing/index.html
If you want an application that scales (using the free tier), it can be done however some find it difficult as DB often get it's own GEAR, which only leaves you one remaining gear for scaling.
Thanks for all the questions and responses posted on here. This site usually shows up whenever I search for information from google, and in many cases, the answers are usually relevant to the issues I needed solved.
I want to preface my question by stating that I've been programming (.NET, XML, T-SQL, AJAX, etc) for less than 2 years, and I still have a lot to learn; so, pardon my ignorance.
Here's my situation (and question): I'm building a social web application, which I know will have much traffic in a short time; as a result,
What are the basic information that I need to have, in order not to be overwhelmed? It's currently a one-man affair, and here is the hosting specification that I plan to start with: 2GB RAM, 600 HDD, 1000 GB bandwidth, and 2.13GHz Duo Core Processor.
I've read about web-farms, but I've never had an opportunity to use them, so I'm not entirely sure how to phrase this question: how can one split the same application on multiple physical servers? How do you make all the files act as one entity? And since every .net application requires a web.config, how is it split among the various files on these multiple servers?
I've built smaller projects before, but this is the first big project I'm building, and to be frank, I'm a little intimidated. So, I would like to ensure I know what I'm getting into before starting.
Thank you.
Based on your background I assume you are developing in a .Net environment? If so, I highly recommend you take a look at Windows Azure. Developing your app against Azure will allow you to deploy your app in Microsoft's cloud platform. Once deployed you can shrink and grow your resources according to demand without having to deal with the relative hassle of setting up multiple servers in multiple locations and managing it all. This allows you to pay for a "little bit" of server up front and if your app gets popular you can easily pay for "web farm" like power and geographic diversity. It also gives you a decent framework for developing an app that will scale relatively well. That's an 18,000-feet overview. If you can put some more details in your question I'm sure you will get more detailed responses. Best of luck!
Your "social web application" will not have any users if it isn't working and deployed. Don't worry about scaling much until the site actually does something useful and has a few hundred users (or at least a few dozen!). Get it working, find people around you who can help when the going gets tough, and keep at it. Otherwise your concerns about needing to scale will never be warranted.
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 14 years ago.
Improve this question
I've seen a lot of questions and discussions about build vs. buy, but most stick with the simplistic approach that you can simply do one or the other. Most of the time you have to either buy and integrate or build yourself. Either way you're in for some work.
In the next 30-60 days I NEED to implement a couple managerial projects to keep everyone from ripping their hair out and killing each other. The largest of which is a ticketing system (emails, support requests, self service, etc.).
There is no shortage of options but at the end of the day we'll have to buy whatever we decide to use, add all our clients and their users and make sure we keep things in sync over time. We'll also have to provide a single sign-on and do some design work to make it all look like we built it from scratch.
If we build we get to skip the integration pain points, albeit with a limited (but focused) feature set.
What do you typically analyze while making a decision like this? If it better to have 4-5 systems that do a very specific job well, or one monolithic system that does everything?
You've identified a key issue - when you buy you still have work to do, and potentially lots of it. Having said that my overall leaning every time is towards buy. Writing code is hard, debugging code is much harder - when you buy, you're not just buying the code/application you're buying the fact that it works - the latter is 90% of the benefit.
However, as your needs are pretty common, why not go with open source. This has two stand out benefits.
1) As you have access to the source, you can bend it to your will - ie no need to lash single sign on over the top of an existing system. Tailor the login modules to use your already existing infrastructure, therefore no need to keep things in sync, time savings, clean approach etc etc. Much open source acknowledges the real world by componentising (?) those aspects which are environement specific anyway. They're often DB/Identity agnostic.
2) If you choose wisely you will have a ready band of top tech staff who already understand the system ready to help - the only problem is they don't work for you (yet!).
My advice would be pick one of your easy targets - the ticketing system seems like the one, analyse whats out there that in the open source world that meets most/all of your needs. Evaluate and put out a request on Rent A Coder for any changes that are required. Sit back and await the results, which are hopefully excellent. You've lost a little time, and gained a lot of experience.
Open source does not equal Linux/Unix - lots of good stuff for .Net out there too.
One system is better for the following:
One data repository(i.e. the Database)
Easy way to link each system together, do cross referencing. No need to build intermediate importer/exporters/sync-ers
Allows for single log in. This is very useful in businesses to make sure everyone know where to find the right information. So more "what was the site for the bug tracking again..." Not everyone will use all the tools the majority of the time, and they will forget how to access and even use.
Everything has the same look and feel
Saves on training
Maintenance is cheaper. Everything is the same to update. Admins dont have to specialize in hear separate system.
But... obviously you're stuck with what you buy. Make sure to get a system if you can that you can build your own addins for, to match it to your busienss' model.
Obviously "it depends." My general rule is that if it's internal we buy it and integrate if required. Our corporate sys admin has a support line to someone external to our organization if she has issues and it isn't a huge project burdening our developers.
If it's part of a product I'm shipping, I build it or take bits of source as needed from open source libraries. There's nothing worse than someone else's black box code breaking your product. The fewer the dependencies in a shipping product the better, IMHO.
I'd lean toward buy for a support product like you mention. The good ones offer great integration points to shared authentication systems, user facing theming, and probably a boatload of features your customer service team hasn't realized they want/need yet.
But, what to analyze. The biggest thing for me when it comes to 'managerial' projects like this is opportunity cost. What else could my team be working on that will make our company significantly more money, get us more customers, etc? Of course these projects have some positive impact on the bottom line, but nothing compared to new products, improved products, etc. How long over time, including maintenance, will developers/pm's/testers spend on this managerial project? If you buy, integration points don't change often, but if you build, your customers (in house people) will be asking for new features constantly and you'll be in the position to maintain this project for the rest of your tenure.
Buy? What is this buy of which you speak, stranger?
Seriously, I haven't had to buy a piece of software for my own projects for a long long time. All my development tools are free, all my third-party libraries are free (not GPL). Even my OS is free. I have to pay for Windows for testing purposes but the majority of work uses tools that are cross-platform.
Anything that requires code not immediately available from free tools or libraries, I either write from scratch (all the algorithms are available for free on the web) or use my (huge since I'm so old) snippet library which I've been adding source code to for many years.
It's almost always quicker to buy ("obtain") than build unless the bought stuff is so crappy that integration is a nightmare. This can be mitigated by avoiding the latest whizz-bang stuff from suppliers that have little track record.
The more 'standard' your requirements, the better buying fits (Or to put it another way, don't reinvent the wheel). Conversely, the more unique your requirements the more you might consider building.
You quite rightly point out that even when buying there tends to be some customisation. Bear in mind that any customisation will cost you at each upgrade/patching time. I suggest that if your requirements are close to the business model supported by one of the tools you might buy that you serious consider realigning the business process to the vendors standard. If this is not possible ask if you are buying the correct tool.
I would suggest that if someone suggests building it for cost reasons run screaming. In my experience the cost of buying is well known and the cost of build is well hidden. Remember that you will be making a decision to keep coding for the life of the App (average of 7 years for a business app) but may be considering only the initial development cost when deciding between buy and build.
I have a strong preference for a single monolithic database but sometimes this is not workable. More important is to have a 'single source of the truth'; if you have multiple databases holding like data, pick one as the authoritative source of a given piece of data and have a process to maintain all others in agreement with that source. Preferable this will be automatic.
The monolithic system that does everything is the the Raison d'être for so many Enterprise applications. What I've found, however, is that if you're not willing to pay a buttload of money, you're going to have integration issues.
The 'best' solution is quite subjective, and any answer is as right as it is wrong, but if I were king, I'd probably go with the entrenched open source solution where it fit, and wrap web services around the items that needed to talk to each other. If I were king.
As a tangential point, there are free ticketing systems like RT (et. al.) that you need not worry about buying.
I'm having trouble deciding if I want a project of mine to be web-based (as in a web-app), desktop-based (a desktop application), or a desktop application that can sync or connect to the cloud.
I don't know if anyone else would have an interest in this application, and it's only going to be for me, so I'm leaning toward desktop application. If, for some reason, I finish it, release it, and people actually like it, I might see about making it sync to the cloud as well (think v2). But I'm not sure how hard it is to make such a radical change, and I don't want to end up with something good that is useless because I made a poor choice before I even started the project.
Is there any sort of guidance for this? Any rules of thumb or best practices? Any personal experiences?
If the language matters, I'm thinking about Java simply because I'm most comfortable with it, and it would easily allow me to share it with my friends for testing and if I get stuck and need help from someone else in person.
I generally ask a few questions:
Can it even be done on the web? Something I did not too long ago involved an image editing component, and had to be a web app. It involved much pain to get this work, and a desktop app would have been a far better way to go.
Will I need to access it from anywhere? Yeah you could load it up on a thumb drive, but the web is far more feasible in this case.
Will there be multiple users? This could go either way, but "long tail" stuff usually means web.
What tech do you want to use? The latest and greatest WPF based UI? Desktop (yeah yeah, silverlight, let's not go there ok?). The brain dead stupid easy user management of Django or others? Web.
If it were a web app, will you need to worry about common attack vectors like SQL Injection, XSS, etc? A desktop app has its own issues here too, but tend to have less exposure.
How resource intensive is it? Will 10 users kill performance of a web server?
Versioning on the desktop can be a pain, whereas with a webapp everyone is on the same version. This can bite you though, see the New Facebook user pushback.
EDIT:
Cost can be a factor too. A web app with a database backend typically means a web server. If you want to stick with, say, the Microsoft Stack, you'll need licenses for SQL Server which can get pricey. Open source is cheaper, but may not be an option in all cases. "Serving" a desktop app is generally cheaper.
If you release as a web-app, you won't have to port it over. You'll also have access to it wherever you go.
I base my choice on the GUI mostly. If the GUI is going to be complex, and (needs to be fast or will have aspects of it that will take a lot of time to process) then I will go with the Desktop. If it is simple, and will always have small data sets to work with at once, the I will go with the Web.
I have worked on an app that was made as a web app, when clearly it was better suited for the desktop. It was a massive failure. I don't know HOW customers put up with it, cause I certainly wouldn't have used it. The desktop version (which took over 6 months to re-write) blew the web version out of the water.
That being said, I have seen some nice web apps.
All I can suggest are several factors that would be relevant. How you determine the answer and weight for the factor is up to you and other circumstances:
What is your audience? Do you have any control over them?
How complex are the interactions you expect to implement?
Do you require near real-time data updates?
How often do you expect to update the application after the first release?
Do you expect a well-defined set of client platforms, or can you not predict that?
Note that your choices also can include a Java WebStart application, which mitigates some of the disadvantages of a typical desktop application.
I'd say that most applications should be desktop-based. The advantages are faster and more fluid apps.
You should only create a web application if there are obvious benefits from it, like access from everywhere. (If that's necessary for your app.)
A downside of web applications can also be that it is dependent on the developer, if you quit supporting it all your users (if you'll have any) can't use it anymore. Furthermore, there is a chance that users are not willing to store their data online.
Ultimately it depends on what kind of an application you want to write. Even if you create it as a desktop-app, you can later on rewrite it for the web. Often a 2.0 version of software needs almost complete rewriting anyway.
Sometime web can be good and sometime not. We are in a new wave that go in the web but do not forget few things:
GUI in web is more complicated because of multiple browser
People who need to work on your system might not like working the whole day in a browser
Web can be slower for some application (image editing, hard job that require a lot of CPU)
Rapid Gui like Visual Studio for winform are faster than for web
But web has many advantage in the deployement and in the portability. If your system is well structured you could make both or change to one to other later with something build with MVC. Just change your visual and you will be fine.
If this were an application to be used my multiple users, with shared data, you're probably going to want a server anyway. In that case I'd lean towards a web application.
Otherwise you've got the complexity of syncing data between the desktop and a server.
Two important questions not on the list so far:
Will the first version have any features that need lowish-level access to hardware?
Will future versions have any featuers that need lowish-level access to hardware?
It's pretty easy to answer the first one, but giving the second one some thought can save you some headache down the road.
My default choice is to go with a web solution, as it's easier to deploy and generally multi-platform. The only time I go with winforms apps is when there are pressing security, performance, or functionality issues that require it.
Previously you'd have written a desktop application, as tool were better for that and you'd have written it faster. People used to want web apps, but always ended up with desktop.
Nowadays things are different, you can write a webservice just as quickly and easily so there's no reason not to go web-based.
The advantages of web-based are flexibility, scalability and ease of deployment. It won't be as responsive as a desktop app could be, but that's not so much of an issue if you think about your design.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm the leader of a small web development team, and I have a feeling that we will have a couple telecommuters joining the team pretty soon (either new employees, or existing employees that will begin telecommuting). Any idea how to effectively manage and collaborate with developers working remotely?
Most of the work we do is client-driven. We're doing agile development (or our version of it, anyway), but since it's mostly client work, we can't really assign a feature to a developer and set them lose for a week or two like we might be able to with a desktop app or something like that. The biggest problem we have when people occasionally work from home is collaborating - it's tough to work together without the benefit of a whiteboard and hand-waving.
It seems like software development is perfect for telecommuting, but I haven't been able to find many good resources about the practical aspects of working remotely within a development team. Has anyone else had any experience with this?
I freelance a lot and in doing so work remotely a lot of the time. These are the things that make my life as easy as possible (so might be things you want to "suggest"). I think they're mostly common-sense, but you never know...
[Everyone] Communicate well. When you're having a conversation face-to-face, you can be verbose and explain things in a round-a-bout way. When you're limited to email, IM and phone, all parties need to explain themselves fully but succinctly. I find that summarising long emails into request/action points goes a long way towards getting things done well.
[Everyone] Have a online project tracking space. Most tend to use a ticket system or some description, where action points can be assigned to members. It wouldn't hurt to use this same space for tracking emails and sharing whiteboard ideas. Most online project apps allow for that by default.
[Management] Don't pester devs. If you need something urgently, set the status of the ticket, give them a call and chase them up later on in the day. Half-hourly emails asking "is it done yet?" does more harm than good!
[Management] Make sure messages get passed along. If a dev says "somebody needs to do something", it's your job to make sure the message is passed along to the right person. There are few things more annoying than passing a message to a project manager for them to accidentally sit on it. I don't want to have to chase up things like that because it's, frankly, not what I'm being paid for.
[Management] Make sure people have something to do. If you send them home with nothing on their task list that they can immediately action, they're not going to put in the effort. It's a damned sight harder to keep yourself productive at home than it is in the office when you've little or nothing that you can do. You might have to juggle tasks if there's a blocker.
I work at home full time. Here are things that help in my small (6 people) team.
Set up rules for using IM. For example, allow remote workers to block off time not to be interrupted by email or IM. Require workers to keep status up-to-date somewhere (IM, Yammer, etc) which helps keep them accountable to stay on task. Stay in touch without being a distraction.
Meet in person occasionally if possible. Nothing can replace a face-to-face meeting. Skype is ok for group meetings, but not if whiteboards are involved.
Use SharedView or another screen sharing program for collaborating. Screenshots/screen captures are helpful as well to make sure both parties are on the same page.
"Any idea how to effectively manage and collaborate with developers working remotely?"
What does "effectively" mean? I can be negative and assume it means "with me, the project leader in control of everything". I can be positive and assume you want people to be as effective as possible.
Sometimes, "effective" is management-speak for "under my control". Or it means "not screwing around."
The question, then is "effectively doing what?" Effectively "working" is rather vague. Hence my leap to the dark side of project management. [Which, I admit, is probably wrong. But without specific team productivity problems, the question has no answer.]
"it's tough to work together without the benefit of a whiteboard and hand-waving" This is only sometimes true, there are lots of replacements. The "hand-waving" over the internet happens more slowly and more thoroughly.
The group-think around the whiteboard is fun -- it's a kind of party. However, for some of us, it's not very productive. I need hours to digest and consider and work out alternatives; I'm actually not effective in the group whiteboard environment.
I find it more effective to use the alternative "slow-motion" whiteboard technologies. I like to see a draft pitch for an idea. Comment on it. Refine it. A lot like a Wiki or Stackoverflow. I really like the internet RFC model -- here's my idea; comment on it. When there are no more improvements, that's as good as it's going to get.
I work in Mississippi and my home office is in Michigan. I spend several hours a day pair programming with my team with ease. The tools I use are:
SharedView
Remote Deskop Assistance
Live Meeting
Oovoo
Skype
Depending on who and how many will depend on the tool I use.
"Use the right tool for the job and invest in a damn good headset." - Me.
I've generally used some time of community based software such as a wiki, blog, or forum to handle the documentation areas. We also have a Cisco phone system and use some capabilities of the system. I'd also recommend live meeting or webex to do frequent team meetings. Skype and IM clients such as Live Messenger are also good tools. For the short status updates, twitter does the trick.
Check out the Agile Scrum methodology with VSTS. Scrum forces us to have daily 15 minutes meeting and small mile stones , It makes sure the effective togetherness and tight communication. Make sure you use Task,Bug assignment etc through VSTS
I agree with John Sheehan's response. I am a consultant and manage other consultants - both on a project basis (as PM) and on a client basis across projects. I have worked with developers on a purely remote basis as well as telecommuting (meaning the majority of time we are co-located). Working remotely is a matter of trust and communication. Co-locating is best, but if you work remotely, simply create a culture of frequent communication. IM and phone are great for this, email less so. If you have a less than communicative co-worker, it is up to you as the manager to reach out. Ask for status. Force code-checkin on a frequent basis for review.
[EDIT] - Yes, don't pester and set expectations! Be clear and concise.
First of all use scrum (daily scrum calls, scrum board w/ burndown chart (wikis do a great job there), iteration in sprints etc). Next to that use tools that make it more easy to collaborate remotely like skype and VNC (maybe campfire?) and a wiki. I worked for 2 years on a project w/ people in 3 countries on 2 continents and various time zones and it worked quite well. The key is having tools and methodologies that make it more difficult for people to "hide", so that everything you and your team does is visible.
I find clear communication and staying on task are challenging with virtual teams. I try to use regular scheduled update meetings (over the phone or video conference) with a written agenda to help with these challenges.
At the front on the agenda list the major milestones and the near term milestones. The first item is always "check progress" each team member simply updates us on when they expect to finish the particular tasks involved. We try not to get involved in long stories here. It's simply "what are you going to do and when".
Once the progress check is done deal with any other issues raised in during the last week and any issues the team has that can be sorted out whilst you are in the meeting. Anything let over (such as new issues raised) needs to have the question asked "who is needs to sort this out and when".
Once you set a common format for the meeting you can do this weekly in 30-45 minutes with teams of 5-8 people. Keep it short and sweet so it isn't viewed as an imposition. Keep it focused on actions and schedule so it can be valuable.
I'm currently the PM of a smaller project that has two developers (myself and another developer that works out of the office). We are currently having daily SCRUM meetings, which last for about 15 minutes. We discuss what got done the previous day, what problems were encountered and what I can do to help with these problems, and what will be done tomorrow.
They're pretty quick and seemed to be very helpful.
Using a Time Tracking Software for your remote employees can greatly help you in managing the team.
While hiring a remote employee, you would be concerned about,
The amount of time spent in getting a task done.
The quality of the work done.
Collaboration based on the progress of the project.
The real time progress on a task.
Collaborating to solve bugs and logical errors.
I was in your situation a while ago and then I tried StaffTimerApp and it helped me in the following ways.
A Time Tracking Software gives crystal clear statistics about the time spent on getting a task done. StaffTimerApp captures screenshots and converts them into billable and non-billable hours. Hence, you would know if any time was wasted while getting the work done. You would also know the exact amount of time spent in getting the work done. If you pay your contractor by the hour, this application can help you tremendously.
If you use a time tracking software that captures screenshots, you can look at them to analyse the quality of work that is being delivered. I used this feature and was able to save some tasks from derailing.
A Time Tracking Software lets the employer know how far along the employee is with the task, hence the information extracted by Time Tracking will make collaboration easier. StaffTimerApp proved to be very helpful as I was able to collaborate with the other employees based on this information.
The screen sharing feature equipped me with the power of viewing my employee's laptop screen in real time. This way I would get to know about the progress on a task.
So you need a good Time Tracking Software with great productivity analytics and employee monitoring capabilities to feel comfortable with hiring a remote developer.