I am playing with node.js and angular for first time. I use shared server hosting space. I am trying to get some node.js tests running.
CPanel seem to provide interface to deploy node applications. Example:
application url: myurl.com
application root: node-hello-world
application startup file: app.js
This seems to create directory and some artifacts in
/home/myurl/nodevenv/node-hello-world/6/bin
I have (limited?) shell access through Cpanel emulation, however I get error on source command.
source activate
got error: error: jailshell: fork: Cannot allocate memory
Does this mean node.js is installed and ready to run? Do I have to upload project as well? Where to? Trying to find more info on process of deploying to this type of server if possible.
sorry for nooby question.
Googling your error message, I came across this thread -- which admittedly is very old, but it's from cPanel and has the following comment from an administrator at the time:
Jailshell is a constrained environment by design. It is not meant to be a replacement for a full-featured, unrestricted, shell environment, such as is provided by Bash. If your user's need such full-featured environments then perhaps they need full shell access, or another method whereby they can accomplish their goal.
That answer was given in 2006 (yes, 13 years ago) but I have to imagine the spirit of that response is still true.
To be perfectly honest, I'd be afraid to use any shared hosting provider that would give you more than very limited shell to use -- it opens the door to many security vulnerabilities, and if multiple customers are in the same runtime (i.e. shared hosting) it could be catastrophic. Maybe your host does allow this, or maybe what you're describing isn't actually the same thing I'm referring to... you didn't offer a lot of details on this point.
Back to your question: Does this mean node.js is installed and ready to run? Do I have to upload project as well? Where to?
If I had to guess, Node probably isn't installed (it isn't in most shared hosting providers) -- but I can't say for sure based on the information you provided. My recommendation would be to call their customer support. Or pay for a dedicated hosting account where you get root access. Or just use something like Heroku.
Related
I've been developing a Next.js website locally and now want to set it up on my Apache server (with cPanel). However, I'm very new to Next.js and Node apps and not too sure how to go about it.
Has anyone done this successfully? Can you list the required steps and what files should be on the server?
Also, can this be done on a subdomain?
Thank you!
To start with some clear terms just so we're on the same page, there are two or three very different things people mean when they say "server":
A Server Machine is a computer that is connected to the internet that you intend to use to serve something to people on the internet.
A Server Program is some software you run on your Server Machine. The job of the Server Program is to actually calculate the responses to various requests.
A Server as a Service is a webapp provided by a company that stores your code and then puts it onto Server Machines with the right Server Program as needed.
While we're here, let's also define:
A Programming Language is the language your website is written in. Some sites have no language (and are just raw HTML/CSS files that are meant to be returned directly to the user). Many sites, though, have some code that should be run on the server and then the result of that code should be returned to the user.
In your case, you have a Machine whose condition we don't know other than that it is running the Program Apache (or probably "Apache HTTP Server"). Apache HTTP server is very old and proven and pretty good at serving raw files back to users. It can also run some Programming Languages like PHP and return the result.
However, Next.JS is built on top of the Programming Language Javascript, which Apache does not have the ability to run. Next.JS instead wants its Server Program to be Node.
So the problem here is basically that you have a hammer, but only screws. You can't use the tool you have, Apache, to solve the problem you need solved, running Node code and returning the result. To get around this you have two options:
First, you can find a way to access the Server Machine that is currently running Apache and tell it, instead, to run Node pointed at your Next.JS code whenever it starts up. This might not be possible, depending on who owns this machine and how they've set it up.
Second, and probably easier, is to abandon this Machine and instead use a Server as a Service. Heroku, AWS, and Netlify all support Next.JS and have a free tier. The easiest solution, though, is probably to just deploy it on Vercel, which is a Server as a Service run by the same team that makes Next.JS and which has a very generous free tier for you to get started with.
The good news, though, is that yes next.js does totally support being hosted from a subdomain.
Next.JS allows you to build fully functional Node Applications, as well as simple statically-generated sites like Jeckyl or Docpad. If your use case is a simple statically generated site look here: https://nextjs.org/docs/advanced-features/static-html-export
In particular the next build && next export command will create all the HTML and assets necessary to host a site directly via an HTTP server like Apache or Ngnix. Contents will be outputed to an out directory that could serve as the server root.
Pay very close attention to what features are not supported via this approach.
I'm moving my Three.js app and its customized node.js environment, which I've been running on my local machine to Google Cloud. I want to test things out there, and hopefully soon get some early alpha testing going with other people.
I'm not sure which is the wiser way to go... to upload the repo I've been running locally as-is onto a VM which users would then access via the VM's external IP until I get a good name to call this app... or merge my local node.js environment with what's available via the Google App Engine and run it on GAE.
Issues I'm running into with the linux VM approach... I'm not sure how to do the equivalent on the VM of what I've been doing locally. In Windows Powershell I cd into the app directory and then enter node index.js. I'm assuming by this method of deployment that I can get the app running as soon as the browser hits the external IP. I should mention too that the app will allow users to save content as well as upload images, and eventually, 3D models as well as json datasets.
Issues I'm running into with the App Engine approach: it looks like I only have access to a linux-based command line, and have to install all the node.js modules manually. Meanwhile I have a bunch of files to upload, both the server-side node files and all the frontend stuff. I don't see where to upload those files, and ultimately what I'd like to do is have access to a visual, editable file-tree interface, as I have in Windows and FileZilla, so I can swap files in and out, etc. Alternatively I suppose I could import a repo from Github? Github would be fine as long as I can visually see what's happening. Is there a visual interface for file structure available in GAE somewhere? Am I missing something?
I went through the GAE "Hello World" tutorial and that worked fine, but was left scratching my head afterward regarding how to actually see and edit the guts of the tutorial app, or even where to look for the files.
So first off, I want to determine what's the better approach, and then if possible, determine how to make the experience of getting my app up there and running a more visual, user-friendly experience.
Thanks.
There are many things to consider when choosing how to run an app, but my instinct for your use case is to simply use a VM on GCE. The most compelling reason for this is that it's the most similar thing to what you have now. You can SSH into the machine and run nohup node index.js & (or node index.js inside tmux/screen if you prefer) and it will start the app and not stop it when you log out of SSH. You can use SCP / SFTP with whatever GUI client you want to upload files. You don't have to learn anything new! If you wanted to, you could even use a Windows VM (although I think you have to pay a little more than for a comparable Linux VM due to the licensing fees).
That said, the other way is arguably more "correct" by modern development standards, but it will involve a lot more learning that will prevent you from getting your app running somewhere other than your laptop in the short term:
First, you'll need to learn about Docker and stateless containers, which is basically what your app runs inside of on AppEngine.
Next, you'll need to learn how to hook up a separate stateful service (database, file server, ...) to your app's container so you can store your files, etc. in it, and then probably rewrite your app somewhat to use it to store stuff.
Next, you'll probably want some way to automatically deploy this from code instead of manually doing it, which gets you into build systems, package managers, artifact storage, continuous integration systems, and on and on and on.
This latter path is certainly what you should choose for a long-running production service if you work with a big team of developers -- but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily the right path for your project today. If you don't care about scaling up automatically, load balancing between nodes, redundant copies of your app running in different regions in case there's a natural disaster, etc., then go with the easy way for now, and you can learn new ways to improve the service when they're actually needed.
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 2 years ago.
Improve this question
There are a bunch of managed cloud based hosting services for nodejs out there which seem relatively new and some still in Beta.
Yet another path to host a nodejs app is setting up a stack on a VPS like Linode.
I'm wondering what's the basic difference here between these two kinds of deployment.
Which factors should one consider in choosing one over another?
Which one is more suitable for production considering how young these services are.
To be clear I'm not asking on choosing a provider but to decide whether to host on a managed nodejs specific hosting or on an old fashioned self setup VPS.
Using one of the services is for the most part hands off - you write your code and let them worry about managing the box, keep your process up, creating the publishing channel, patching the OS, etc...
In contrast having your own VM gives you more control but with more up front and ongoing time investment.
Another consideration is some hosters and cloud providers offer proprietary or distinct variations on technologies. They have reasons for them and they offer value but it does mean that if you want to switch cloud providers, it might mean you have to rewrite code, deployment scripts etc... On the other hand using VMs with standard OS as the baseline is pretty generic. If you automate/script/document the configuration of your VMs and your code stays generic, then your options stay open. If you do take a dependency on a proprietary cloud technology then it would be good to abstract it away behind an interface so it's a decoupled component and not sprinkled throughout your code.
I've done both. I did the VM path recently mostly because I wanted the learning experience. I had to:
get the VM from the cloud provider
I had to update and patch the OS
I had to install and configure git as a publishing channel
I had to write some scripts and use things like forever to keep it running
I had to configure the reverse http-proxy to get it to run multiple sites.
I had to configure DNS with the cloud provider, open ports for git etc...
The list goes on. In the end, it cost me more up front time not coding but I learned about a lot more things. If those are important to you, then give it a shot. If you want to focus on writing your code, then a node hosting provider may be for you.
At the end of it, I had also had more options - I wanted to add a second site. I added an entry to my reverse proxy, append my script to start up another app with forever, voila, another site. More control. After that, I wanted to try out MongoDB - simple - installed it.
Cost wise they're about the same but if you start hosting multiple sites with many other packages like databases etc..., then the VM can start getting cheaper.
Nodejitsu open sourced their tools which also makes it easier if you do your own.
If you do it yourself, here's some links that may help you:
Keeping the server up:
https://github.com/nodejitsu/forever/
http://blog.nodejitsu.com/keep-a-nodejs-server-up-with-forever
https://github.com/bryanmacfarlane/svchost
Upstart and Monit
generic auto start and restart through monitoring
http://howtonode.org/deploying-node-upstart-monit
Cluster Node
Runs one process per core
http://nodejs.org/docs/latest/api/cluster.html
Reverse Proxy
https://github.com/nodejitsu/node-http-proxy
https://github.com/nodejitsu/node-http-proxy/issues/232
http://blog.nodejitsu.com/http-proxy-middlewares
https://github.com/nodejitsu/node-http-proxy/issues/168#issuecomment-3289492
http://blog.argteam.com/coding/hardening-node-js-for-production-part-2-using-nginx-to-avoid-node-js-load/
Script the install
https://github.com/bryanmacfarlane/svcinstall
Exit Shell Script Based on Process Exit Code
Publish Site
Using git to publish to a website
IMHO the biggest drawback of setting up your own stack is that you need to manage things like making Node.js run forever, start it as a daemon, bring it behind a reverse-proxy such as Nginx, and so on ... the great thing about Node.js - making firing up a web server a one-liner - is one of its biggest drawbacks when it comes to production-ready systems.
Plus, you've got all the issues of managing and updating and securing your server yourself.
This is so much easier with the hosters: Usually it's a git push and that's it. Scaling? Easy. Replication? Easy. ...? Easy. All within a few clicks.
The drawback with the hosters is that you can not adjust the environment. Okay, you can probably choose which version of Node.js and / or npm to run, but that's it. You have no control over what 3rd party software is installed. You've got no control over the OS. You've got no control over where the servers are located. And so on ...
Of course, some hosters allow you access to some of these things, but there is rarely a hoster that supports all.
So, basically the question regarding Node.js is the same as with each other technology: It's a pro vs con of individualism, pricing, scalabilty, reliability, knowledge, ...
I personally chose to go with a hoster: The time and effort I save easily outperform the disadvantages. Mind you: For me, personally.
This question needs to be answered individually.
Using Docker is another way to simplify the setup on single Linux VPS. With Docker both development and production setups are faster, more robust, and more secure.
The setup is faster and more robust because you will be deploying ready Node.js image at once, without running any installation scripts. And it would be more secure because internal dependencies, such as database, can be hidden from outside world completely and accessible only from Docker internal network. On top of it, Docker significantly simplifies the upgrade process for underlying OS and Node.js runtime.
There are two ways to setup Node.js Docker environment. The first one – follow the instruction published here how to dockerize your application and deploy it with Docker, alongside with databases when needed. The guide gives the instructions for the development setup, the production setup will be similar.
Another way would be deploying official Node.js docker image and mounting application code as a volume or a folder to Node.js image. That would allow to update Node.js image going forward without re-building and re-deploying the application. Such approach solves long-standing problem with security patching of Docker images.
To help out with the setup of Docker on single machine - you can use Abberit Admin Panel. It will set up Node.js environment for you with a click of a button, including databases if you need them. The tool is free, and you can turn it off after you have completed initial setup. On the other hand, if later you decide to reduce maintenance tax of the production - you can migrate into managed service without any changes in the app.
Disclaimer: I am one of the founders of Abberit.
I have a Windows application that does some calculations and is called from command line. On my Windows machine, I have a PHP script running under Apache that executes the application and shows the output.
Is there any hosting solution that I can use to do the same? I can't figure out if EC2 or Azure are the right solutions. Basically, I need a web server + ability to execute my application.
Suggestions? Thanks.
You can host your application on AppHarbor, the .NET Platform-as-a-Service. You can either port your web frontend to .NET or try to get your PHP stuff working with Phalanger. AppHarbor is working on Background Tasks, which might be a good match for your workload.
I would just run the PHP script you already have under IIS in a Windows Azure web role.
If it is a Windows Application and you have the source code I would go with an Azure Worker Role. The advantage of using a PaaS (as Azure) instead of an IaaS (as Amazon) is that you wont have to bother of keeping the server up to date.
The real investment in time will be when you rewrite your application to make it work as a Worker Role. The time needed to do this work depends on how your application works right now. If is uses a lot of disc access it might be difficult and perhaps an Amazon server would be better. But if it only crunches numbers in memory an Azure Worker Role is a very good candidate.
The real advantage of using an Amazon server is that you probably wont need to do any work at all. Except maintaining the server.
As described in the question both Azure and EC2 will do the job very well. This is the kind of task both systems are designed for.
So the question becomes really: which is best? That depends on two things: what the application needs to do and your own experience and preference.
As it's a Windows application there should probably be a leaning towards Azure. While EC2 supports Windows, the tooling and support resources for Azure are probably deeper at this point.
If cost is a factor then a (somewhat outdated) resource is here: http://blog.mccrory.me/2010/10/30/public-cloud-hourly-cost-comparison/ -- the conclusion is that, by and large, Azure and Amazon are roughly similar for compute charges.
Steve Marx has a blog post that describes how to run another web server (i.e not IIS) on Azure
This potentially has everything you need - you can deploy Apache and your executable and run it in exactly the same way.
Alternatively - you can deploy your executable along side a bit of code in a worker role that would run that application periodically, all depending on your exact requirements
For the first time, I am writing a web service that will call upon external programs to process requests in batch. The front-end will accept file uploads and then place them in a queue. The workers on the backend will take that file, run it through ffmpeg and the rest of my pipeline, and send an email when the process is complete.
I have my backend process working on my computer (Ubuntu 10.04). The question is: should I try to re-create that pipeline using binaries that I've compiled from scratch? Or is it okay to use apt when configuring in The Real World?
Not all hosting services uses Ubuntu, and not all give me root access. (I haven't chosen a host yet.) However, they will let me upload binaries to execute, and many give me shell access with gcc.
Usually this would be a no-brainier and I'd compile it all from scratch. But doing so - not to mention trying to figure out how to create a platform-independent .tar.gz binary - will be quite a task which ultimately doesn't really help me ship my product.
Do you have any thoughts on the best way to set up my stack so that I'm not tied to a specific hosting provider? Should I try creating my own .deb, which contains Ubuntu's version of ffmpeg (and other tools) with the configurations I need?
Short of a setup where I manage my own servers/VMs (which may very well be what I have to do), how might I accomplish this?
The question is: should I try to re-create that pipeline using binaries that I've compiled from scratch? Or is it okay to use apt when configuring in The Real World?
It is in reverse: it is not okay to deploy unpackaged in The Real World IMHO
and not all give me root access
How would you be deploying a .deb without root access. Chroot jails?
But doing so - not to mention trying to figure out how to create a platform-independent .tar.gz binary - will be quite a task which ultimately doesn't really help me ship my product.
+1 You answer you own question. Don't meddle unless you have to.
Do you have any thoughts on the best way to set up my stack so that I'm not tied to a specific hosting provider?
Only depend on wellpackaged standard libs (such as ffmpeg). Otherwise include them in your own deployment. This problem isn't too hard too solve for 10s of thousand Linux applications over decades now, so it would probably be feasible for you too.
Out of the box:
Look at rightscale and other cloud providers/agents that have specialized images/tool chains especially for video encoding.
A 'regular' VPS provider (with Xen or Virtuozzo) will not normally be happy with these kinds of workload, but EC2, Rackspace and their lot will be absolutely fine with that.
In general, I wouldn't believe that a cloud infrastructure provider that doesn't grant root access will allow for computationally intensive workloads. $0.02