Do web developers need there own local server?
-
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.
-
Great point thanks. I don't really want to setup full debug environment on a public facing server either.
anixi wrote:
I don't really want to setup full debug environment on a public facing server either.
Correct, you do not. This is another selling point, as you need to be able to debug pre-release, but allowing a debugger on a public-facing machine is a MAJOR security problem, I've been told.
-
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.
Just my 2 cents here (I agree with Shepard). Why is IT asking you to justfiy anything, if your managers agree that you need it, which they should, they should tell IT what to give you. It's then their job to get the details from you on exactly what you need and implement it.
-
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. :)
-
Just my 2 cents here (I agree with Shepard). Why is IT asking you to justfiy anything, if your managers agree that you need it, which they should, they should tell IT what to give you. It's then their job to get the details from you on exactly what you need and implement it.
Another case of IT gone power-mad. The main job of IT (at least on my side of the planet) is to provide an answer to your question, not figure out if you need an answer. Sounds like you've come up with some good reasons and convinced those in charge. Now IT needs to get cracking and recommend what they think is the best technical solution. BTW - I run 3 local development servers (32- & 64-bit servers, and a laptop that travels to conferences, symposia, demos, and installs). All are backed up nightly. Cross-browser compliance of web apps is checked on these machines & some of the "legacy" boxes in the office [those with IE6 & older flavors of some other browsers] as well as the 4 Vista boxes [we're migrating ever-so-slowly]... Just Bob's 2 cents. :)
-Bob
-
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:
o 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?
No, you need one kick ass station with VMWare workstation installed and a virtual server, virtual test stations, virtual development station then you can tell IT to go take a flying fuck and get your work done.
-
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?
The simple answer is yes. Both of my portables are running 2003. The best buy is the Visual Studio Professional with MSDN Premium. When I ordered my portable w/o an OS I asked for the subscription. It has every version of OS that MS makes. If your company is a Dell customer, the prices for MSDN maybe lower if you buy it thru Dell.
-
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:
Every place I have worked at I have had a local server (or virtual PC on a local server).
certainly not a "must have", no! in fact, except for source control, we have moved our entire dev cycle to local machine. no network issues to deal with especially when working in an office with 40 odd other developers all hogging limited bandwidth, never mind the rolling blackouts(not so bad now) that cause serious downtime with a slow network boot-up time...source control...database server...etc! we can get latest, opt for a 'dev-build' and our dev database is rebuilt through our framework, replete with the whole teams changes and test data to boot allowing us to drill down to an individual process WITH user permissions(logon as role) in a simulated live environment. now, ...if we could just get everyone to actually test their code!:sigh:
anixi wrote:
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.
they are also trying to manage costs and they possibly had other plans for that machine you took, maybe his little brother needs a machine. i mean really, you didnt think management had a clue the machine could be used for anything else, and they should have consulted with IT before making rash decisions like that...why not, they consult with IT on just about everything business related anyway dont they?
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?
hey boet!(south african slang for "heeey bro!") in this day and age you shouldnt have to ask whether you need VM or not - by the way...source control in the VM is not a good idea, 'ek-se'(slang for 'i tell ya'!). heck, china!(slang again for "heeey bro!") use 2003, 2008, even test with sharepoint or linux, the world is your oyster especially with cross browser testing! installing all those other browsers locally is a moot point because who in their right mind would want chrome or worse 'flock' or netscape running on their machines? use VM where you can really pound the floor and stomp the crud out of them till they bleed and when your done, simply vaporize! anyway,
-
What? Why not test on production systems like a normal person? :-D
I do that :)