Do web developers need there own local server?
-
anixi wrote:
Do you think I need a local machine with Windows 2003 as a test for deployments, UAT, a place for source control, maybe even to run Virtual PC server to help with cross browser testing?
Personally, I would never store source code on a (probably not backed up) PC - that's what central servers are for. Why do you need Virtual PC for cross-browser testing? You can put IE, Firefox, Safari and Chrome on one PC without any problems. I can see needing a virtual machine for testing Linux-based browsers, though. As a test machine - my preference would be for a second machine that I can revert to a "known good" state, rather than using my main machine (and for this, virtualisation is an ideal solution, since the underlying VHD can simply be replaced to revert the machine).
Electron Shepherd wrote:
Personally, I would never store source code on a (probably not backed up) PC - that's what central servers are for.
Good point. IT are probably worried about the back-up requirements. At the moment I am running my own back-ups of code from local PC to central file server wich IT current run back-up. (They don't want me to install anything on the file server)
Electron Shepherd wrote:
Why do you need Virtual PC for cross-browser testing? You can put IE, Firefox, Safari and Chrome on one PC without
For cross browser testing I mean different versions of browsers, IE6/WinXP, IE7/WinXP, IE7/Vista. After once spending ages debugging a problem I found on IE6 under Windows 2003 only to find that it was not reproducable on IE6/WinXP I like to be able to double check things. :) With Virtual PC Server you can run your virtual PC session in a browser so it does not have to take resources from your local machine. Also with clean installs you can test Flash / Silverlight installation etc. Yeah I am still trying to sell this idea. I have management in on it. Just need to make sure I can put the case to IT.
-
anixi wrote:
Do you think I need a local machine with Windows 2003 as a test for deployments, UAT, a place for source control, maybe even to run Virtual PC server to help with cross browser testing?
I would say yes. Especially the idea of a VPC, where you can try out different configurations and easily revert back to a baseline configuration. Marc
-
Thanks Marc. Yeah the VPC was a big part of it for me too. So source control not a big selling point? Would you suggest running source control locally?
anixi wrote:
So source control not a big selling point?
Oh, I missed the part about source control. Look, I'm a consultant and on many of my projects, I'm the sole developer. What do I do for source control? I lease a dedicated server off site so that if the house burns down, or whatever, I have a remote location for my source code. Even personal project stuff I put under source control. It is inconceivable to me that a software company, whose main asset is the code, would do any less. And yet, anyone with brains, such as yourself, has to justify the cost to management? Insane. Marc
-
Every place I have worked at I have had a local server (or virtual PC on a local server). Now I am working at a new place where I am the only web developer and the IT guys are asking me to justify why I need a local server. Management have given me a PC I can use as a server but IT are asking me why I need one. Do you think I need a local machine with Windows 2003 as a test for deployments, UAT, a place for source control, maybe even to run Virtual PC server to help with cross browser testing?
-
anixi wrote:
So source control not a big selling point?
Oh, I missed the part about source control. Look, I'm a consultant and on many of my projects, I'm the sole developer. What do I do for source control? I lease a dedicated server off site so that if the house burns down, or whatever, I have a remote location for my source code. Even personal project stuff I put under source control. It is inconceivable to me that a software company, whose main asset is the code, would do any less. And yet, anyone with brains, such as yourself, has to justify the cost to management? Insane. Marc
Aw.... Marc thinks I have brains! Thanks! :) When I took this job I underestimated what it would be like to work with a group of non-developer tyes. Explaining and justifying are now parts of my job. So you have a server off site... this sounds like something that might fit in the environment I have here. So you use a distributed source control system? The bandwidth works ok for you?
-
It is better to have a testing web server that matches the live server setting to test your applications before going live, since there is a possiblity that your local development machine sometimes behaves differently from the live web server.
TOMZ_KV
-
Every place I have worked at I have had a local server (or virtual PC on a local server). Now I am working at a new place where I am the only web developer and the IT guys are asking me to justify why I need a local server. Management have given me a PC I can use as a server but IT are asking me why I need one. Do you think I need a local machine with Windows 2003 as a test for deployments, UAT, a place for source control, maybe even to run Virtual PC server to help with cross browser testing?
anixi wrote:
IT are asking me why I need one.
Because you need to be able to simulate the live environment. You cannot do that on your PC because it has a lot of other things that you need like Visual Studio, Office and so on. Also, if you are developing on Windows XP and deploying to a server then the versions of IIS will be different. (XP has 5.5 while Server 2003 has 6.0) There are subtle differences and you need to have tested in the correct environment. If your deployment is to a load balanced web farm then you need to simulate that also. There are so many subtle things that a load balancer brings into the equation that you do not want to be finding out it doesn't work properly after you go live. If the issue is licensing then you should have an MSDN subscription which will give you the installation disks (or ISO images if you go for the download option) with development licenses. In other words you can install the server software you need for no additonal cost. They did give you MSDN? Bottom line is that Management see you need the test server. IT are probably dragging their heels because they see it as something else they need to support that's going to have lots of software on it that they don't understand. For some reason they hate that. And with regard to things like source control: That MUST go on a separate server and be in the backups. What I've discussed above is purely for testing. Source control is a production system (that just happens to be pretty much only used by developers)
*Developer Day Scotland - Free community conference Delegate Registration Open
-
Electron Shepherd wrote:
Personally, I would never store source code on a (probably not backed up) PC - that's what central servers are for.
Good point. IT are probably worried about the back-up requirements. At the moment I am running my own back-ups of code from local PC to central file server wich IT current run back-up. (They don't want me to install anything on the file server)
Electron Shepherd wrote:
Why do you need Virtual PC for cross-browser testing? You can put IE, Firefox, Safari and Chrome on one PC without
For cross browser testing I mean different versions of browsers, IE6/WinXP, IE7/WinXP, IE7/Vista. After once spending ages debugging a problem I found on IE6 under Windows 2003 only to find that it was not reproducable on IE6/WinXP I like to be able to double check things. :) With Virtual PC Server you can run your virtual PC session in a browser so it does not have to take resources from your local machine. Also with clean installs you can test Flash / Silverlight installation etc. Yeah I am still trying to sell this idea. I have management in on it. Just need to make sure I can put the case to IT.
anixi wrote:
At the moment I am running my own back-ups of code from local PC to central file server wich IT current run back-up. (They don't want me to install anything on the file server)
You are going to have to install the server component of what ever source code repository you are using somewhere. If IT are worried about their servers then get them to install it. Unless of course they won't install anything they are not trained in. In which case they are a bunch of numpties.
*Developer Day Scotland - Free community conference Delegate Registration Open
-
Aw.... Marc thinks I have brains! Thanks! :) When I took this job I underestimated what it would be like to work with a group of non-developer tyes. Explaining and justifying are now parts of my job. So you have a server off site... this sounds like something that might fit in the environment I have here. So you use a distributed source control system? The bandwidth works ok for you?
anixi wrote:
So you have a server off site... this sounds like something that might fit in the environment I have here. So you use a distributed source control system? The bandwidth works ok for you?
While I cannot answer about Marc's specific solution. There is an advert that appears from time-to-time on Code Project for an off-site source control solution. Basically, it is some sort of software as a Service (Saas) solution that might work for you.
*Developer Day Scotland - Free community conference Delegate Registration Open
-
anixi wrote:
At the moment I am running my own back-ups of code from local PC to central file server wich IT current run back-up. (They don't want me to install anything on the file server)
You are going to have to install the server component of what ever source code repository you are using somewhere. If IT are worried about their servers then get them to install it. Unless of course they won't install anything they are not trained in. In which case they are a bunch of numpties.
*Developer Day Scotland - Free community conference Delegate Registration Open
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
If IT are worried about their servers then get them to install it. Unless of course they won't install anything they are not trained in. In which case they are a bunch of numpties.
lol Yes I had started to think that. :) We do want IT to worry about servers, but there is a line wich maybe going too far. Maybe I should push this back at them and ask them "why not?" If they want me to justify my case I should get them to justify theres! Well, I will try to find a nice way to ask that though, of course. :)
-
anixi wrote:
So you have a server off site... this sounds like something that might fit in the environment I have here. So you use a distributed source control system? The bandwidth works ok for you?
While I cannot answer about Marc's specific solution. There is an advert that appears from time-to-time on Code Project for an off-site source control solution. Basically, it is some sort of software as a Service (Saas) solution that might work for you.
*Developer Day Scotland - Free community conference Delegate Registration Open
-
anixi wrote:
IT are asking me why I need one.
Because you need to be able to simulate the live environment. You cannot do that on your PC because it has a lot of other things that you need like Visual Studio, Office and so on. Also, if you are developing on Windows XP and deploying to a server then the versions of IIS will be different. (XP has 5.5 while Server 2003 has 6.0) There are subtle differences and you need to have tested in the correct environment. If your deployment is to a load balanced web farm then you need to simulate that also. There are so many subtle things that a load balancer brings into the equation that you do not want to be finding out it doesn't work properly after you go live. If the issue is licensing then you should have an MSDN subscription which will give you the installation disks (or ISO images if you go for the download option) with development licenses. In other words you can install the server software you need for no additonal cost. They did give you MSDN? Bottom line is that Management see you need the test server. IT are probably dragging their heels because they see it as something else they need to support that's going to have lots of software on it that they don't understand. For some reason they hate that. And with regard to things like source control: That MUST go on a separate server and be in the backups. What I've discussed above is purely for testing. Source control is a production system (that just happens to be pretty much only used by developers)
*Developer Day Scotland - Free community conference Delegate Registration Open
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Because you need to be able to simulate the live environment. You cannot do that on your PC because it has a lot of other things that you need like Visual Studio, Office and so on. Also, if you are developing on Windows XP and deploying to a server then the versions of IIS will be different. (XP has 5.5 while Server 2003 has 6.0) There are subtle differences and you need to have tested in the correct environment.
Great points thanks! I have MSDN so I know the issue is not licensing. But I should make this very clear to IT, it might be part of the resaon they are blocking me on this.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
IT are probably dragging their heels because they see it as something else they need to support that's going to have lots of software on it that they don't understand. For some reason they hate that.
Yes. It definately feels like they aren't familiar with the software and would prefer not to be! :) Thanks for this feedback. The IT guys had made me feel that I was being over the top and unreasonable in requiring a local web server for testing etc.
-
Aw.... Marc thinks I have brains! Thanks! :) When I took this job I underestimated what it would be like to work with a group of non-developer tyes. Explaining and justifying are now parts of my job. So you have a server off site... this sounds like something that might fit in the environment I have here. So you use a distributed source control system? The bandwidth works ok for you?
anixi wrote:
So you use a distributed source control system? The bandwidth works ok for you?
Just plain old CVS on the server with Tortoise CVS on the client. Bandwidth is excellent, and my clients appreciate having access to the source control system as well. Marc
-
Every place I have worked at I have had a local server (or virtual PC on a local server). Now I am working at a new place where I am the only web developer and the IT guys are asking me to justify why I need a local server. Management have given me a PC I can use as a server but IT are asking me why I need one. Do you think I need a local machine with Windows 2003 as a test for deployments, UAT, a place for source control, maybe even to run Virtual PC server to help with cross browser testing?
What? Why not test on production systems like a normal person? :-D
-
Every place I have worked at I have had a local server (or virtual PC on a local server). Now I am working at a new place where I am the only web developer and the IT guys are asking me to justify why I need a local server. Management have given me a PC I can use as a server but IT are asking me why I need one. Do you think I need a local machine with Windows 2003 as a test for deployments, UAT, a place for source control, maybe even to run Virtual PC server to help with cross browser testing?
I would try to run Parallels on an iPhone then spend all day working at a near-by Starbucks with an IV drip but that's just me :cool: I do development + debugging on a the fastest local box I can get my hands on. We have a build server setup with Source Control, CruiseControl.NET, NAnt, Visual Studio and some extra tools to perform builds and automated deployment to a Development and Staging environment. Development has debug=true, extra logging, relaxed permissions, etc. to facilitate debugging. Staging is a mirror of Production. This allows us to break code locally during development but still allow QA, Marketing, etc. to perform testing on Development & Staging with the latest changes. The only servers that require backups then are the build server and production servers. Space permitting we backup development and staging as well.
Todd Smith
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Because you need to be able to simulate the live environment. You cannot do that on your PC because it has a lot of other things that you need like Visual Studio, Office and so on. Also, if you are developing on Windows XP and deploying to a server then the versions of IIS will be different. (XP has 5.5 while Server 2003 has 6.0) There are subtle differences and you need to have tested in the correct environment.
Great points thanks! I have MSDN so I know the issue is not licensing. But I should make this very clear to IT, it might be part of the resaon they are blocking me on this.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
IT are probably dragging their heels because they see it as something else they need to support that's going to have lots of software on it that they don't understand. For some reason they hate that.
Yes. It definately feels like they aren't familiar with the software and would prefer not to be! :) Thanks for this feedback. The IT guys had made me feel that I was being over the top and unreasonable in requiring a local web server for testing etc.
If you have no test server, you have to post your unproven code on the live server. And when you discover that you left a huge system crashing bug in the code, that's going to affect the company's bottom line and worse, their public image, because the customers will find it. I would suggest VirtualBox or VMWare as an easy way to host your own. But that's only if they refuse to get you a real test server. You'll still be vulnerable to slight inconsistencies, but it's a whole lot better than running the web server on your own OS.
Don't let my name fool you. That's my job.
-
Every place I have worked at I have had a local server (or virtual PC on a local server). Now I am working at a new place where I am the only web developer and the IT guys are asking me to justify why I need a local server. Management have given me a PC I can use as a server but IT are asking me why I need one. Do you think I need a local machine with Windows 2003 as a test for deployments, UAT, a place for source control, maybe even to run Virtual PC server to help with cross browser testing?
I use to use Win2003 as my dev box until Vista. Now I use Vista 64 (have since the last betas) and of course it has IIS with the ability to have as many websites as you wish. I also use a customized "hosts" file in the system directory (actually C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts) and patch names without the extentions to my test sites. For example, I would patch in Codeproject and www.Codeproject if I were developing Codeproject.com and just have it redirect to localhost. This allows me to have multiple sites under development and still be able to any of them at any time on my local machine. Works great and I have full control of the environment.
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: Silverlight Domain Names up for grabs! Thinking about Silverlight? www.SilverlightCity.com
-
I would try to run Parallels on an iPhone then spend all day working at a near-by Starbucks with an IV drip but that's just me :cool: I do development + debugging on a the fastest local box I can get my hands on. We have a build server setup with Source Control, CruiseControl.NET, NAnt, Visual Studio and some extra tools to perform builds and automated deployment to a Development and Staging environment. Development has debug=true, extra logging, relaxed permissions, etc. to facilitate debugging. Staging is a mirror of Production. This allows us to break code locally during development but still allow QA, Marketing, etc. to perform testing on Development & Staging with the latest changes. The only servers that require backups then are the build server and production servers. Space permitting we backup development and staging as well.
Todd Smith
Isn't this what's referred to as "standard practice"?
-
Every place I have worked at I have had a local server (or virtual PC on a local server). Now I am working at a new place where I am the only web developer and the IT guys are asking me to justify why I need a local server. Management have given me a PC I can use as a server but IT are asking me why I need one. Do you think I need a local machine with Windows 2003 as a test for deployments, UAT, a place for source control, maybe even to run Virtual PC server to help with cross browser testing?
I think it's madness not to. It's better to have somewhere where you can offload, & test finished code without making it live. It needs to be local- because you will access thousands of times. Having a local server you can play around with will also help you when it comes to fixing problems with remote servers. It's also a nice place to back up your work. You will probably work a lot more efficiently with one.
-
Every place I have worked at I have had a local server (or virtual PC on a local server). Now I am working at a new place where I am the only web developer and the IT guys are asking me to justify why I need a local server. Management have given me a PC I can use as a server but IT are asking me why I need one. Do you think I need a local machine with Windows 2003 as a test for deployments, UAT, a place for source control, maybe even to run Virtual PC server to help with cross browser testing?
You need some staging server alright but it doesn't have to be a physical one in your room anymore. Use Amazon EC2 or any of the hundreds of hosters out there who will sell you a few hours of machine time and, most importantly IMO, a real IP and domain setup. Make sure your environment is a nice, wrapped up AMI that you can deploy to a fresh server in minutes (not hours of configuring, copying, transferring etc.) This will also help you test load-balancing, multiple boxes, statelessness, failover etc. We recently used Heroku[^] for staging but that is for Rails projects. Worked very well though.
cheers, Paul M. Watson.