Deployment - Getting Discouraged

  1. ‹ Older
  2. 8 months ago

    scott b

    29 Jan 2019 Pre-Release Testers, Xojo Pro local coffee shop

    @Richard D brilliant idea... i install Docker on my Mac but don't know what to do next.

    that is the problem with all the container solutions. people get it installed then dont have a clue what to do next. you are not alone. I have worked with some fairly large companies that did the same thing. "I installed Docker, what do I do next?"

    @jim m That would be great! I managed to get a Dockerized app running, but it wasn't pretty. It seems once you have the image, getting it online is mostly a matter of adding it to your repository and deploying it. The thing I thought could be great is the load balancing with shared data...

    that is the basic flow. 1) install Docker. 2) build or find a docker image to use (hub.docker.com has a ton of pre-built images that may or may not work for you). 3) tell docker to create a container based on the image in step 2.

    you dont have to have you own repository for your images, you can use a third party one like hub.docker.com (or there are others). not most third party repositories (for docker images) allow anyone to use your image. which may or may not be what you are looking for. if you want to host your own repository there are options and most of them are actually docker containers themselves. Yeah I get the funny part of docker repository to host your docker images is a docker image itself. If you use GitLab you can use it as your docker image repository.

    @jim m There's a Wordpress/MySQL Tutorial that would be pretty close to deploying Xojo to Google Cloud, I think, though I haven't tried it.

    putting a load balancer in front of docker container is the ideal way to go. that way you can spin up/down docker containers to keep up with your demand. Now your load balancer can be a docker image itself. there are several out there that are free that work very well. and the separation of the app (Xojo app for us) and the DBase (mysql in your suggestion) should be separate containers that way you can update any component without impacting everything. also it always you to scale up/down as the demand needs.

  3. jim m

    29 Jan 2019 Pre-Release Testers, Xojo Pro piDog.com

    @scott b if you want to host your own repository there are options and most of them are actually docker containers themselves.

    Would it make sense to use Google's Container Registry if I was deploying to Google?

  4. scott b

    29 Jan 2019 Pre-Release Testers, Xojo Pro local coffee shop

    @jim m Would it make sense to use Google's Container Registry if I was deploying to Google?

    I am not an expert on their particular registry. if it allows you to have "private" images then there is no reason not to. if it doesnt then you have to ask yourself, is it all right for others to have a copy of my docker image? if it is then it is still fine. if it isnt then you wouldnt. does that make sense?

  5. jim m

    29 Jan 2019 Pre-Release Testers, Xojo Pro piDog.com

    Makes sense. If you do a tutorial on making the Docker Images, I might do one on deploying to Google.

  6. James N

    29 Jan 2019 Pre-Release Testers, Xojo Pro Christchurch New Zealand

    I’ve been using Phillip and serverwarp (1701) for 4 years and it’s cheap, brilliant service, and exceptionally easy to throw a cgi site up. Especially if you use the free cubesql database they offer.
    I’ve has Xojo cloud as well. Always gone back to Phillip because I never have any issues.

  7. Daniel T

    29 Jan 2019 Pre-Release Testers, Xojo Pro

    @Paul L You might find setting up a Xojo standalone web app is easier than making sure Apache is properly configured to run CGI.

    I have always found stand alone Xojo Web to be faster and easier than CGI Xojo Web. I don't think this is Xojo's fault, it's just the nature of the beast.

  8. Tim K

    29 Jan 2019 Pre-Release Testers, Xojo Pro

    @James N-Plank I’ve been using Phillip and serverwarp (1701) for 4 years and it’s cheap, brilliant service, and exceptionally easy to throw a cgi site up. Especially if you use the free cubesql database they offer.
    I’ve has Xojo cloud as well. Always gone back to Phillip because I never have any issues.

    I too have been using 1701 / Server warp and have been a big fan of Phillip and his services,
    however, it seems it's getting too big to support.
    My server warp control panel no longer allows control of containers and have been waiting several weeks on a support issue.

  9. Michel B

    29 Jan 2019 Pre-Release Testers, Xojo Pro RubberViews.com

    @Christian Meacute;zes As far as I know, ServerWarp is the successor to 1701
    https://www.serverwarp.com

    I recommend ServerWarp. Phillip Zedalis provides a great support, and deploying is pretty much fire and forget. I have been with them for several years, and never once regretted it.

    I tried Digital Ocean, but these people are Martians, and I did not have my universal translator. My job is to program, not learn the encyclopedia linuxia.

  10. Ryan D

    29 Jan 2019 Pre-Release Testers

    My recommendation is Xojo Cloud. I’ve started using it and I like it because I get to focus on my app rather than server admin. I tried many different VPS hosting plans, and I just got frustrated that my focus was on fighting with Linux distributions, Apache config files and libraries, etc. If a company is of a reasonable size and has an IT staff to manage the hosting environments and deployments, then doing it in-house might be fine. But if it takes me away from focusing on the app-at-hand, then I’m using Xojo Cloud, or another “push button” solution.

  11. Ralph A

    29 Jan 2019 Santa Monica, California

    @Julia T I'm pretty sure they'll recommend XojoCloud! :D

    Thanks for the heads-up re digitalocean - the link I'd tried was dead, but they do indeed seem to be alive and well.

    Update... I don't understand anything on the digitalocean site :( Droplets, Kubernets, Spaces...?

    Try ServerWarp.com. Their Xojo side of the business used to be called 1701. If it's too difficult over there for you over there, you can always abandon it and you're out only a month or so of dough, which is a lot less than Xojo Cloud per month.

  12. Greg O

    29 Jan 2019 Xojo Inc

    @Ivan T Maybe there ara some people eager to burn some extra money, digitalocean has a exact same option with 2 GB RAM, 50 GB SSD, 2 Tb Transfer for just $10/ Mo, and even a option with half of that for $5 Mo.

    I would like to point out that it’s not the same. Xojo Cloud is what you would call a managed service. We Set up the server, install security (including but not limited to a firewall, an IDS and SELinux) apply server updates at regular intervals and if there’s ever a problem, we go track it down and fix it.

    IMHO, maintaining servers that are exposed to the internet is not something anyone should take lightly and if you don’t have experience in such matters, you should be paying someone who does to do it for you.

  13. Phillip Z

    29 Jan 2019 Pre-Release Testers, Xojo Pro Florence, SC

    I think Greg makes a good point. You have to decide if you want to operate a Linux server or not. The cost of management is pretty insignificant compared to the time investment of Linux is not your thing.

  14. Phillip Z

    29 Jan 2019 Pre-Release Testers, Xojo Pro Florence, SC

    @Tim K I too have been using 1701 / Server warp and have been a big fan of Phillip and his services,
    however, it seems it's getting too big to support.
    My server warp control panel no longer allows control of containers and have been waiting several weeks on a support issue.

    Hi Tim - thanks for the honest review. You raise a good point about us growing. I have gone through a couple support people and it is challenging to find good people! Also the control panel is constantly evolving. Those with some edge cases (like your support issue) can sometimes get lost in the shuffle.

    Anyway, I'll take care of it and credit your account to make sure you feel whole. We don't always exceed expectations but when we disappoint we make sure the customer is treated fairly.

  15. Phillip Z

    29 Jan 2019 Pre-Release Testers, Xojo Pro Florence, SC

    For those considering Google Cloud I am a big fan. The container registry itself is nothing more than a Docker registry and can get expensive for storage/egress depending how many servers you deploy too. The big thing is if you just use a raw VM (Google Compute Engine) then you are essentially paying more for an unmanaged service you can get anywhere else.

    The value add of Google Cloud is really GKE (Kubernetes engine) but you need to be a Docker rockstar to really benefit from it. We are trying to be a balance between Kubernetes and just your conventional SFTP cgi-bin. It is a tough balance.

    Google Cloud is fairly expensive for what you get so that $300 is not as exciting as it seems.

  16. 7 months ago

    Julia T

    30 Jan 2019 Sandy Hook, Connecticut

    Thanks for all the helpful replies, good to know that serverwarp is around. My client has given me access to their server, where ultimately this app will be hosted. They installed GLIBC at my request and I put all the components of my Xojo 64-bit Linux build into the cgi-bin directory and set permissions per Greg O'Lone's recommendations. Now when I try to access the .cgi file's URL I get a 404.

  17. Ralph A

    30 Jan 2019 Santa Monica, California

    @Julia T Thanks for all the helpful replies, good to know that serverwarp is around. My client has given me access to their server, where ultimately this app will be hosted. They installed GLIBC at my request and I put all the components of my Xojo 64-bit Linux build into the cgi-bin directory and set permissions per Greg O'Lone's recommendations. Now when I try to access the .cgi file's URL I get a 404.

    Let's say your Web app is MyWebApp. Its CGI file will then be mywebapp.cgi. To hit MyWebApp, you would need the URL to include the CGI filename, something like this:

    <yourServer>/cgi-bin/MyWebAppFolder/mywebapp.cgi

    And make sure all these have permissions 755:

    All folders
    The MyWebApp file
    The mywebapp.cgi file
    All files in folder "MyWebApp Libs"

    All other files would have permissions 644.

  18. Ralph A

    30 Jan 2019 Santa Monica, California

    And make sure the hidden .htaccess file is in there (permissions 644).

  19. Julia T

    30 Jan 2019 Sandy Hook, Connecticut
    Edited 7 months ago

    Thanks, Ralph. Yes, I have a fully-formed URL to the .cgi file, taken straight from the FTP client where I see the .cgi file. And as stated, I've set permissions per Greg O'Lone in another thread:

    "The executable, .cgi, Libs directory and its contents should all be set to 755. If you have any helper apps, they should be set this way also. Just about everything else will only need 644"

    And .htaccess is also there, with 644.

  20. Ralph A

    30 Jan 2019 Santa Monica, California

    And the cgi-bin folder, and all its subfolders, are set at 755?

  21. John A

    30 Jan 2019 Pre-Release Testers Las Vegas, Nevada

    An FTP location and the HTTP URL aren't always the same.
    The FTP connection usually goes straight to the file system with the real location of the files.
    Web servers have a habit of hiding the actual file by diverting the URL you asked for to where the files really are.

  22. Newer ›

or Sign Up to reply!