We have a windows app running on AWS. We access the app via remote desktop connection.
This app has the ability to serve 50 concurrent users. Now I have to launch loadtest to verify if its able to serve 50 concurrent user or not.
How can I record test with loadrunner for that app which is running on cloud? Please help me.
Are you trying to test the app infrastructure or the remote desktop infrastructure of AWS? These are two different questions.
What do you know about the architecture of this application, the next upstream architectural component that it communicates with, the communication method, etc...? You will need to understand this if you want to scrape away the interface and test at the application layer protocol or developer API layer. Barring this you either go to the source and use Visual Studio or go up a tier to use Remote Desktop, a protocol supported by LoadRunner
I am in the process of building a Web based client for a Server application which is running as a Windows Service. The server application currently has a Windows Form based Client Application written in C# and the idea is to obsolete it and provide a new Web based Client Application. The Server application will be exposing REST based APIs and the Client Application would be using the REST APIs to communicate with the Server Application. (Currently the Server App exposes SOAP based endpoints which are consumed by the Windows Form Based App)
The Browser based client application would be written using Angular JS. The Client Application would be used by at max 10 concurrent users. The App is targeted for system administrators and would be used inside the enterprise environment.
Another requirement is to integrate Active Directory Authentication for the Client Application. So given the performance requirement and authentication requirements, I am wondering whether I should use IIS for hosting the Web Application. Or should I just use the existing Server to self host the web pages.
If at all I go with Self Hosting option, would Katana Self host be a good option? Or should i use WCF Rest kit to serve the pages?
What are the performance implications of using a Self Hosted mechanism for hosing the Web Application compared to IIS?
Any suggestion would be greatly appreciated.
WCF REST Starter kit is still in second preview 2 version from 2009 so I'd be pushed to recommend using it.
The question of IIS or self host depends, do you need the features that IIS has out of the box like logging, restart after failure, etc?
My suggestion would be to use ASP.NET Web API (or Nancy, which is an excellent choice too) but keep your hosting layer separate from your application layer so you have the flexibility to decide how you host your service later on.
The second suggestion is performance test early on, pick a hosting mechanism and measure how the service copes under load - you may find out that you're worrying about something that you don't need to.
I have created a website using eclipse and tomcat. I want to deploy it in a real web hosting area so that clients can use it. How to do that using aws?!
Amazon Web Services have a number of different tools to deploy applications on their infrastructure. It really depends on the level of control you want and need. Your options are as follows:
Elastic Beanstalk - You can simply upload your code and AWS will handle the entire deployment from capacity provisioning, load balancing, auto-scaling to application health monitoring. You can read more about it here - https://aws.amazon.com/elasticbeanstalk
AWS OpsWorks - You can define the application’s architecture and the specification of each component. You can read more about it here -https://aws.amazon.com/opsworks
There are also other services such as CodeDeploy which could form part of your release cycle. From your question, it sounds like Elastic Beanstalk would be the most suitable. If you have little experience deploying web applications it might be better to look for a managed hosting platform. AWS expects you to have in-depth knowledge of architecting and developing web applications.
Can I use or integrate any software in Bluemix such as Apache Spark? Or does Bluemix limits the developers to using software products and services that are available in the platform?
Bluemix provides a catalog of services as a convenient way to access those capabilities within your application. The platform handles user creation and credential handling within the service for your app.
But you're not forced to use those services. If you have an externally hosted service that you need to use in your app, you are free to do so.
If you want to host your own service instance within the Bluemix environment, you can make use the the IBM Container service, or a Softlayer hosted virtual machine.
IBM Bluemix has a very good hybrid cloud story. You are not limited to using software product or services that are available within the Bluemix platform.
If you have a software product that you would like to integrate with Bluemix, it is best to host them within Bluemix using Bluemix container or Bluemix VM to minimize the latency between your Bluemix application and the software you like to run.
If you have a third party service that is offered outside of Bluemix or if you prefer to host your software on-premise, there is a suite of services in the Integration category on Bluemix (e.g. Secure Gateway and Cloud Integration) that provides secure connectivity from Bluemix to other applications and data sources running on-premise or in other clouds.
What are the material differences between the new Azure Web Sites and the traditional Azure Web Roles for an ASP.NET MVC application? What reason would I choose a "web site" over a "web role" or vice versa?
Let's assume that I would need equal capacity in either case (e.g. 2 small instances). The prices seem comparable other than the fact that there is a 33% temporary discount for web sites while they are in their preview period.
Are there things that I can do with a "web site" that are difficulty or impossible with a web role? For example, does it become easy to put multiple web sites in a single set of VMs using "web sites"? Do I lose anything with a "web site" vs a "web role"? Ability to fine tune IIS? Ability to use the Cache service locally?
Web Roles give you several features beyond Web Apps (formerly Web Sites):
Ability to run elevated startup scripts to install apps, modify registry settings, install performance counters, fine-tune IIS, etc.
Ability to split an app up into tiers (maybe Web Role for front end, Worker Role for backend processing) and scale independently
Ability to RDP into your VM for debugging purposes
Network isolation
Dedicated virtual IP address, which allows web role instances in a cloud service to access IP-restricted Virtual Machines
ACL-restricted endpoints (added in Azure SDK 2.3, April 2014)
Support for any TCP/UDP ports (Web Sites are restricted to TCP 80/443)
Web Apps have advantages over Web Roles though:
Near-instant deployment with deployment history / rollbacks
Visual Studio Online, github, local git, ftp, CodePlex, DropBox, BitBucket deployment support
Ability to roll out one of numerous CMS's and frameworks, (like WordPress, Joomla, Django, MediaWiki, etc.)
Use of SQL Database or MySQL
Simple and fast to scale from free tier to shared tier to dedicated tier
Web Jobs
Backups of Web Site content
Built-in web-based debugging tools (simple cmd/powershell debug console, process explorer, diagnostic tools like log streaming, etc.)
With the April 2014 and September 2014 rollouts, there are now some features common to both Web Apps and Web Roles (and Worker Roles), including:
Staging+production slots
Wildcard DNS, SSL certificates
Visual Studio integration
Traffic Manager support
Virtual Network support
Here's a screengrab I took from the Web Sites gallery selection form:
I think Web Apps are a great way to get up and running quickly, where you can move from shared to reserved resources. Once you outgrow this, you can then move up to Web Roles and expand as you need.
EDIT 2014: For what it's worth, a lot of the info in this answer is no longer correct - see comments.
Add more to #David response:
With Windows Azure Websites, you don't have control over IIS or web Server because you are using a resources slice along with hundreds of other website on the same machine, you are sharing resources like any other so there is no control over IIS.
The big difference between a website shared and Azure web role is that a web-site is considered process bound while roles are VM bound.
Websites are stored on a content share which is accessible from all the "web servers" in the farm so there is no replication or anything like that required.
Windows Azure websites can not have their own host name instead they must use websitename.azurewebsites.net only and you sure can use CNAME setting in your DNS provider to route your request exactly same with previous Windows Azure Role only when they are running in reserved mode. CNAME setting is not supported for shared websites.
I've just posted a comprehensive blog post on this very subject at http://robdmoore.id.au/blog/2012/06/09/windows-azure-web-sites-vs-web-roles/.
An excerpt from my conclusion: If you need enormous scale, SSL, Asian or West US data centres, a non-standard configuration (of IIS, ports, diagnostics, security certs or start up scripts), RDP or cost-effective Worker Roles (combined with your Web Role) then you are going to have to stick to Web Roles for now.
Otherwise, Web Sites is a great option!
Azure Web Role is like a virtual private host. You get a VM that acts as your web server, and you own that VM instance.
Azure Web Sites are like an elastic shared hosting service. You deploy your app to a web server that is not controlled by you and which also servers other users' sites. You can scale your site up and down (at some extra charge) to make it more elastic as your resource needs shift.
There is one more scenario that is up the air: After these 500 exceptions are eliminated, they haven't said anything about the ability of Azure Websites to handle wildcard CNAME's. Several of us are using Nate's Web Role Accelerator in Cloud Services, becuase a one-line hack provided wildcard subdomain capability in Nate's software. We can't move these wildcard subdomain apps until we know that Azure Websites will be able to handle them. If it won't ever be able to do that, then it goes down as a positive on the Web Role side of the equation. Also of note is that with pricing being exactly the same (after the preview discount expires), I'm not sure I want to give up my access to RDC and Event Viewer (just to mention two things).
Azure Web Sites enables you to build highly scalable web sites quickly on Azure. You can use the Azure Portal or the command-line tools to set up a web site with popular languages such as .NET, PHP, Node.js, and Python. Supported frameworks are already deployed and do not require more installation steps. The Azure Web Sites gallery contains many third-party applications, such as Drupal and WordPress as well as development frameworks such as Django and CakePHP. After creating a site, you can either migrate an existing web site or build a completely new web site. Web Sites eliminates the need to manage the physical hardware, and it also provides several scaling options. You can move from a shared multi-tenant model to a standard mode where dedicated machines service incoming traffic. Web Sites also enable you to integrate with other Azure services, such as SQL Database, Service Bus, and Storage. Using the Azure WebJobs SDK preview, you can add background processing. In summary, Azure Web Sites make it easier to focus on application development by supporting a wide range of languages, open source applications, and deployment methodologies (FTP, Git, Web Deploy, or TFS). If you don’t have specialized requirements that require Cloud Services or Virtual Machines, an Azure Web Site is most likely the best choice.
Cloud Services enable you to create highly-available, scalable web applications in a rich Platform as a Service (PaaS) environment. Unlike Web Sites, a cloud service is created first in a development environment, such as Visual Studio, before being deployed to Azure. Frameworks, such as PHP, require custom deployment steps or tasks that install the framework on role startup. The main advantage of Cloud Services is the ability to support more complex multitier architectures. A single cloud service could consist of a frontend web role and one or more worker roles. Each tier can be scaled independently. There is also an increased level of control over your web application infrastructure. For example, you can remote desktop onto the machines that are running the role instances. You can also script more advanced IIS and machine configuration changes that run at role startup, including tasks that require administrator control.
Virtual Machines enable you to run web applications on virtual machines in Azure. This capability is also known as Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS). Create new Windows Server or Linux machines through the portal, or upload an existing virtual machine image. Virtual Machines give you the most control over the operating system, configuration, and installed software and services. This is a good option for quickly migrating complex on-premises web applications to the cloud, because the machines can be moved as a whole. With Virtual Networks, you can also connect these virtual machines to on-premises corporate networks. As with Cloud Services, you have remote access to these machines and the ability to perform configuration changes at the administrative level. However, unlike Web Sites and Cloud Services, you must manage your virtual machine images and application architecture completely at the infrastructure level. One basic example is that you have to apply your own patches to the operating system.
See updated and comprehensive comparison from this link: http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/choose-web-site-cloud-service-vm/
Azure Websites, Web Workers and Virtual Machines are three different computing approaches available on Windows Azure. They differ in the level of control and responsibilities:
Azure Website have lowest level of control, but you don't care about keeping in health virtual machine and IIS, because Azure stuff do this for you
Web Roles give you more control (traffic manager, remote desktop), but more administration is possible on your side which means that you can break something via remote desktop for example
Virtual Machines gives you full control of VM, so require the most administration efforts.
There is no one best choice, because it depends on what level of control you need, what features you need and what you want to leave Azure stuff to maintain. And it is big topic..
Please look at this articles for more information to make more informed choice:
http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/documentation/articles/choose-web-site-cloud-service-vm/
http://davidpallmann.blogspot.com/2012/06/reintroducing-windows-azure-part-2.html
It boils down to tradeoff between ease of use and capabilities.
Two more things I found was cost of getting SSL for a custom domain site and Multi-tenant configurations.
For website you need to pay monthly on top of standard instance (Small instance is the cheapest option). This means in order to get custom domain https would cost you ~70/month for small instance plus ~41/ month for SSL that supports all browser.
For WebRole you can get XS instance and add your own SSL for free, which means ~$15 per month
and you have a custom domain with SSL.
For multi-tenant website check out
Multi-tenant Azure dynamic wildcard CName
A web role is a virtual machine that hosts multiple websites
This is a common question, and I would like to give out an excerpt from msdn.
Access to services like Caching, Service Bus, Storage, SQL Azure Database- WebSite:Yes WebRole:Yes
Support for ASP.NET, classic ASP, Node.js, PHP- WebSite: Yes WebRole:Yes
Shared content and configuration- WebSite:Yes WebRole:No
Deploy code with GIT, FTP- WebSite:Yes WebRole:No
Near-instant deployment-WebSite:Yes WebRole:No
Integrated MySQL-as-a-service support-WebSite:Yes WebRole:Yes
Multiple deployment environments (production and staging)-WebSite:No WebRole:Yes
Network isolation-WebSite:No WebRole:Yes
Remote desktop access to servers-WebSite:No WebRole:Yes
Ability to run programs with elevated permissions-WebSite:No WebRole:Yes
Ability to define/execute start-up tasks-WebSite:No WebRole:Yes
Ability to use unsupported frameworks or libraries-WebSite:No WebRole:Yes
Support for Windows Azure Connect/ Windows Azure Network-WebSite:No WebRole:Yes
To get a more in detail, visit this link: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/silverlining/archive/2012/06/27/windows-azure-websites-web-roles-and-vms-when-to-use-which.aspx