I want to create mirrors for my website and I want to know if there is a way to upload my website on different servers at the same time ( through filezilla, wget or other tools ).
Look at using rsync
Mirroring with rsych
When you deploy code you need to make sure that your code changes land on all your servers, one way to do this would be to use a tool like Capistrano if you're inclined to ruby or Fabric or Puppet if you prefer python.
The other way is to deploy onto one server and periodically mirror them over to the other servers using rsync as Paul suggested
Related
I have a primary server, where I'm running couple off websites.
A friend of mine has configured everything there. Im running Debian on my server.
ISPConfig (Where I manage all my domains, mails, ftp)
Apache
Mysql
PHPMyadmin
Now, I have very important websites which needs to up and running all the time and I want to purchase another server so if this one fails the other one should take over.
I'm planning to use DNSMadeEasy service..
I know I can use rcync to clone all of this but my question is:
How do I know what needs to be copied to the other files so I get all the configuration files of all different services i'm running.
Is there a way to clone on server to another or what is the best approach here?
Im super concerned that this server might go do, and I can not afford to have my website going do..
Any thought and ideas?
Your question is unclear, but here are a couple of basic technologies that you should consider:
(1) Set up another MySQL server which is a replication slave of the master. The two servers communicate so that the slave is always up-to-date.
(2) Use version control such as git to manage all the software that is installed on any server, and all versions and changes made to it. commit the changes as they are made and push the changes to an independent "repository," e.g. on (a private repository on a ...) public service such as GitHub or BitBucket.
(3) Arrange for all "asset files" to be similarly-maintained this time probably using rsync.
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.
I'd like to start using my localhost to develop from. I am trying to work out the best way to sync my local folder with the files directory on the remote web server. In some cases there will be 10,000+ files.
This is not for component files such as php, css, javascript etc. This is for content and media files which I do not wish to use git/svn for.
Thanks
I would recommend using rsync. It's built specifically for remote synchronization tasks. Take a look at the compression and differential modes.
There is always rsync
http://linux.about.com/library/cmd/blcmdl1_rsync.htm
It is built for exactly this kind of task, and optimized for syncing when there are small deltas to large file sets.
if rsync is out of the question you can try wget, it has some nifty fetuers.
I'm developing on my local machine (apache2, php, mysql). When I want to upload files to my live server (nginx, mysql, php5-fpm), I first backup my www folder, extract the databases, scp everything to my server (which is tedious, because it's protected with opiekey), log myself in, copy the files from my home directory on the server to my www directory and if I'm lucky and the file permissions and everything else works out, I can view the changes online. If I'm unlucky I'll have to research what went wrong.
Today, I changed only one file, and had to go through the entire process just for this file. You can imagine how annoying that is. Is there a faster way to do this? A way to automate it all? Maybe something like "commit" in SVN and off you fly?
How do you guys handle these types of things?
PS: I'm very very new to all this, so bear with me! For example I'm always copying files into my home directory on the server, because scp cannot seem to copy them directly into the /var/www folder?!
There are many utilities which will do that for you. If you know python, try fabric. If you know ruby, you may prefer capistrano. They allow you to script both local and remote operations.
If you have a farm of servers to take care of, those two might not work at the scale you want. For over 10 servers, have a look at chef or puppet to manage your servers completely.
Whether you deploy from local checkout, packaged source (my preferred solution), remote repository, or something entirely different is up to you. Whatever works for you is ok. Just make sure your deployments are reproducible (that is you can always say "5 minutes ago it wasn't broken, I want to have what now what I had 5 minutes ago"). Whatever way of versioning you use is better than no versioning (tagged releases are probably the most comfortable).
I think the "SVN" approach is very close to what you really want. You make a cron job that will run "svn update" every few minutes (or hg pull -u if using mercurial, similar with git). Another option is to use dropbox (we use it for our web servers sometimes) - this one is very easy to setyp and share with non-developers (like UI designers)...
rsync will send only the changes between your local machine and the remote machine. It would be an alternative to scp. You can look into how to set it up to do what you need.
You can't copy to /var/www because the credentials you're using to log in for the copy session doesn't have access to write on /var/www. Assuming you have root access, change the group (chown) on /var/www (or better yet, a sub directory) to your group and change the permissions to allow your group write access (chmod g+w).
rsync is fairly lightweight, so it should be simple to get going.
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