I would like to understand if, at an enterprise level, it makes sense to use the free version of GitLab or the premium version.
GitLab would only be used as a code repository.
Looking on the official website, on the pricing page https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/, storage limits are indicated for the free version (5GB), but by installing the Self-managed version of the product, I would really have storage limitations storage or limitations on the number of users per namespace?
I have use the free version for years, using an on-premise installation of GitLab. No limitation (beside what the system imposes in term of disk space/memory).
The main limitation is in feature, when you want advanced CI/CD features which are not available in the free version.
Related
In order to avoid doing some overhead work, I decide to use a work-around to upgrade my VM from server 2016 to 2019. The work around was successful and everything is running fine. One hiccup though is that I still see the plan being set to "2016-Datacenter".
(Correct me if I am wrong) So far doing some digging I see that this is set at the create time of the VM; it corresponds to the sku of the image used to build the VM.
My question is, are there any gotchas if the VM is running server 2019 but the plan is set to "2016-Datacenter"
Plan information is metadata Microsoft uses to track Marketplace offers. If you want to create an image in a shared gallery, using a source that was originally created from an Azure Marketplace image like this, you may need to keep track of purchase plan information. You may face issues when you create a VM from the Azure Marketplace image if there is wrong plan information. Read here for more details.
We are able to do an Azure VM in-place upgrade to Windows Server 2019. Here is the step by step process to update the IaaS VM Windows server to Windows Server 2019 for your reference.
However, it's not recommended to do because Microsoft does not support an upgrade of the operating system of an Azure VM.. It prefers to use a clean uninstallation and installation. To work around this issue, create an Azure VM that's running a supported version of an operating system, and then migrate the workload.
Context
When I try to create a new Compute resource and picking it in Azure portal Marketplace the description starts with "Bring Your Own License enabled" I suppose the Compute resource will be a Windows Server with IIS configured and a web application installed.
Question
What does "Bring Your Own License enabled" in this context exactly mean?
a) I must have MS licences for the the Windows Server, that is
not included in the Azure pricing.
b) I have an option to use my own licences. If I do not use them, the
price is what I see, and if I configure to use them the price is
lowered (sounds a bit unrealistic)
Bottom line: If I would like to use this resource do I have to own an MS license a) or not b)?
There are two ways to license software on hardware provisioned through the Azure marketplace.
The first is an "embedded" license. This means that when you start up a templated compute resource (in your case a VM with Syncfusion), you don't need to buy an additional license for Syncfusion. You will notice that the usage cost for the VM is inflated compared to a vanilla VM without the software installed on it. The cost of the license is baked into the price you pay to "rent" the VM from Microsoft via Azure subscription.
The second is "Bring your own license". This is typically used when an organisation has existing software licenses already purchased (in this case, for Syncfusion). When you bring your own license, you only pay for the vanilla virtual machine and apply your pre-bough Syncfusion license. In other words, the cost of the syncfusion license is not built in to the rental of the virtual machine.
This can get more complex when you factor in templates with multiple software packages installed but hopefully you get the drift.
We will be hosting TFS in a private cloud on VM(s). Are there technical differences to hosting TFS on Azure or AWS, or is it only a matter of pricing and which cloud a team prefers and has past knowledge of? I also think we won't go the Visual Studio Online route.
At InCycle, we have a full TFS 2015 installation hosted in Azure spread across something like 6-8 VMs. You'll need to take into account the standard considerations (virtual machine sizing and performance), especially on the data tier, which should have plenty of fast disks and lots of CPU and RAM.
You'll also need to consider Active Directory sync and how you'll get access to things like build drops on-premise from Azure.
Honestly, VSO will almost certainly be a lot cheaper for you, and you won't have to worry about the infrastructure requirements or upgrading TFS on a regular basis.
The ALM rangers have excellent guidance on this, as well: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/bharry/archive/2014/06/06/team-foundation-server-on-azure-iaas-guidance.aspx
As a Microsoft Azure services client, I received earlier today the following mail: http://aka.ms/Qga48e.
I was wondering how I could migrate my Blob storage without services disruption to use the latest Azure File Storage service.
Anybody has already performed this action? Any feedbacks will be welcomed.
Thanks.
I don't think that it would be necessary. Besides Azure Blob Service and Azure File Service serve different purposes all together and the things you could do with blob service can't be done through file service.
As mentioned in the newsletter, what you should try to do is upgrade your client applications to make use of latest version of storage client library. If you're using an older version of library (< 2.0), there would be some pain in migration but migrating from 2.0 to 4.x (currently latest version) should be rather painless.
Next thing you should look into is the default service version of your storage account services. If you're using .Net storage client library, you can fetch it via GetServicePropertiesAsync method. You can update the default service version using SetServicePropertiesAsync method.
You may also find this link helpful about understanding storage service versioning: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dd894041.aspx.
UPDATE: 13-DEC-2014
Azure Storage Team has published a blog post which talks more about this issue: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsazurestorage/archive/2014/08/05/microsoft-azure-storage-service-version-removal.aspx.
The Storage Service REST API is not being removed. There are several versions of the API, from over the years. Older versions of the REST API (prior to the 2012-02-12 version) are being retired. But it's definitely not going away, and neither is the Azure Storage service.
Different versions of the SDKs (across the various language stacks) and command-line tools (PowerShell, CLI) may be using one of the older versions. If you're using the current versions of SDKs and command-line tools, this has no effect on you.
Consider how many versions there have been (all tracked here, and all listed in the page you linked to in your answer:
2014-02-14 (current)
2013-08-15
2012-02-12
2011-08-18
2009-09-19
2009-07-17
2009-04-14
If you're using an older version of an SDK or command-line tool, there's a chance that, in Dec. 2015, it won't work as expected anymore, as the underlying version will have been retired. So, essentially you have until December 2015 to update your Azure projects if needed.
I've made a simple productivity app for Windows store 8 and the most requested feature by the reviewers was cloud syncing. I've tried finding some tutorials on how to implement that but haven't found anything useful.
Do I have to use Windows Azure for Windows store 8 apps, because from what I've read it only gives a 3-month trial and It's not worth paying because my app is free with no source of income.
Are there any other cloud computing platforms that are easy to integrate in an app and free ?
Eventually every cloud provider would charge you for using their services and even under free mode, they will provide services with certain caveats. For example, Windows Azure Websites are currently free for 1 year when running under shared mode. Amazon AWS provides a free usage tier (http://aws.amazon.com/free/) but it also has some limitation and the moment you go above those, you will be charged.
Not knowing much about your application, there're three possible solution I could recommend (just thinking out loud :):
Keep a free version of the product with no cloud syncing (as you have currently).
Provide a ad supported free version of the product with cloud syncing(kind of freemium offering).
Provide a paid, ad-free version of the product with cloud syncing.
SkyDrive (officially Microsoft SkyDrive, previously Windows Live SkyDrive and Windows Live Folders) is a file hosting service that allows users to upload and sync files to a cloud storage.
It gives 7 GB of free cloud storage that's accessible from anywhere.