I am new to Openshift world. When I try to setup Openshift cluster (I tried mini-shift already), I got two main styles (or ways) to setup open-shift.
1. Advanced installation
2. Quick installation
As the name suggests I think in advance installation we can get more control on installation, but quick installation is interactive but less controlled installation.
I googled out but I did not get any link for pros and cons for each of this type. I did not understand which way I can choose when. Can somebody help me out?
thanks in advance.
If you want to set up single-node development cluster, use minishift as you have already tried.
If you want to deploy any other cluster, do the Advanced installation. It's good for single-node clusters as well as production-grade multi-node deployments.
I usually do not recommend users to do the Quick installation, unless you a very specific reason to require this method.
I want to know is there any RDBMS which will install with our application executable file & we'll don't need to setup Database in every single machine, Like user just install the app and run RDBMS will also setup it self in installation.
There is more to that, than meets the eye: The first question to answer is, whether the RDBMS is used concurrently.
If not, a simple file-based engine will most likely be sufficient: I recomment SQlite, as it is as cross-platform as can be. There is no setup involved, you can simply package the sqlite.[so|dll|dylib] with your application
If yes, you have to think about which installation should be the "master" installation, with others being slaves: It might not be a good idea to use a salesman's laptop as the master, even if it happens this is the first machine available. Decicated servers exist for a reason. A lot of products have an installer, that asks for an installation mode such as Standalone/Server/Client. Chosing Server will mostly result in calling the installer for the RDBMS first.
My personal opinion is: If a non-tivial app is multitiered like in the second bullet, the tiers should be installed one-by-one by someone, who has an idea, what these tiers are and do. If not, you create an accident waiting to happen. But again - this is my personal opinion only.
I have read about the advantages of using a BitNami stack for LAMP development, now I am wondering if there are any drawbacks to using BitNami vs manually installing PHP, MySQL, and Apache separately. I use Mac OS but I would be interested on how it applies to both Mac and Windows. Any thoughts?
I am one of the developers of BitNami. Whether to use a native stack or a BitNami stack depends on what you are trying to do. Installing the individual items separately should be exactly the same as running our installer, and the whole purpose why we put the installers together is so you would not have to :) In the case of Mac, one of the advantages of BitNami is that you can have more up-to-date components and multiple installations. A disadvantage / difference is that the applications and path will be different than the typical ones so if you are using third-party tutorials or documentation, it may not work right away
There are 3 common drawbacks to Bitnami vs. a native LEMP/LAMP stack:
File paths. Because Bitnami is a container approach to web stacks, it installs everything in Ubuntu (or whatever Linux distro) under the /opt/bitnami directory. So, many developers who are used to customizing their stack using nano or vim editors (via the Bash shell) quickly discover that you first have to figure out where all the different configuration files of your stack modules reside, etc. Even after you figure those out, most of the online tutorials and documentations you might find will not apply to your stack.
Lockdown. This could be seen as either an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on your perspective (and situation). The entire point of using a containerized approach is to have more control of the stack environment, which can improve compatibility, predictability, security, and otherwise. However as #team-life mentioned, this can quickly become frustrating when you are trying to use "standard" Bash shell commands or even the MySQL CLI, e.g. when trying to analyze or replicate your stack, etc. To put it simply, logging into shell on a server where Bitnami is installed is not in fact logging into the actual shell :)
Upgrades. At the end of the day, Bitnami (and other containers, like Docker) are adding another "layer" to your stack, and thus, more bloat. For some users this "bloat" is justifiable, and preferable (for example, very large companies who require across-the-board uniformity). But what many developers discover with Bitnami and containers is upgrading your stack can be rather janky. For all the alleged advantages in terms of environment "stability", it turns out that upgrading your stack can actually introduce quite a bit of instability and unpredictability, often to the extent of canceling out the benefits. As #domi mentioned, all upgrades run through Bitnami (and not Ubuntu mirrors, etc) meaning you are bound to their versions and release schedules; you are also often required to completely re-install the stack again...
Ultimately, containers are a recent trend that have become very popular among so-called "enterprise" and "corporate" in-house teams, but it is one of those things that might not be the best features for smaller agencies or independent developers to embrace.
That is why native LEMP stacks like SlickStack (my project) are gaining momentum.
This Reddit thread has a few other AWS-specific comments as well.
BitNami uses paths that will be very different from the industry standard ones so if you are trying to login to a server to do some task, it will take you a lot of time to understand their custom-made-folder-structure. And that's a big drawback. When you login to a unix server, you know where the files and paths are, maybe you have one or two options, that are standard. BitNami uses a completely different one. Chaos ensues.
I'm a happy bitnami stack user. It's a great stack. I can describe many advantages.
The draw back of using bitnami stack is the update cycle. For example on Debian/Ubuntu based system, you can not use the standard apt-get update/upgrade.
That means some security updates might not get to your system as fast as your standard cron (automated periodic) update mechanism.
To upgrade the system you will need to create backup, install a new stack, then import the backup to the new stack. Which might not be an ideal procedure.
Some people categorize that as non-production-environment.
Bitnami - ease of use, validated components - known working good configuration.
Disadvantage - Patches and updates. you cannot update packages for security like you can for native install. Any bulletins must be addressed by the bitnami team, who may/will roll out an update to address issues. The bitnami updates are full stack upgrades, meaning you can't just upgrade a single component (php for example) - you need to upgrade the whole bitnami stack, and the often recommended method is to backup your application database, install a parallel bitnami stack that has the latest updates, then restore or migrate to the new installation.
Some will tell you that you can shoehorn patches into bitnami stacks, but it's not at all recommended, will lead you off the stack and most likely cause you down stream issues.
Bitnami evidently is unable to use certain commands from their mysql command line. I'm finding this very frustrating. Here is some stuff I found out.
It puts you into its own bash shell bash-4.2#
mysql>SHOW MASTER STATUS returns -> (nothing) doesn't seem to work
rcmysql start or stop doesn't work from mysql> you have to shell out of where your at and run the ctlscript.sh which is a pain.
Just to get to command line you have to run ./use_lampstack
I'm guessing that they are giving us a very paired down mysql group of commands because there will be less for them to support and less for people to jack up.
So this came up for me because I was trying setup replication. I was following directions from someone who had a "regular" install. It was difficult to follow because most of the commands he was suggesting didn't work from the bitnami mysql> command line. So while I really like the uniformity of Bitnami and the modular nature of it I have run into a snag trying to setup replication.
I want to know if it's possible and I'm looking for tutorials to set it up.
APE website says that knowledge of JavaScript programming is sufficent to follow the tutorial however I haven't been able to puzzle even the first 2 lines of the tutorial.
I'm using Ubuntu. After downloading APE I have no idea what to do. I already set up SSH to access the server.
What should be my following steps or where can I find an easier to tutorial to use comet be it through APE or something else?
Assuming your GoDaddy server is running some flavor of Linux, I don't see any reason it would not be possible. I was just looking over the documentation and I am not clear on what part you are having trouble with. What Linux distribution are you using? Do you have SSH access?
If you have ssh access and a root account you should be able to just follow the instructions to get APE running on the default port.
If you are running a Debian dist (Ubuntu and others) it looks like you should download the source from Git and compile it. There are instructions for the compilation there. You can learn about what you need to do wth Git by search for "clone git".
If you can be more specific about what you are having trouble with, we can probably be more helpful. But ultimately you should be able to install this on any dedicated server without issue.
I find it a bit strange that it is so difficult to find information about how to do this.
I want to configure my Apache2 to use mod_dbd when authenticating users. But I cannot find any examples or good descriptions anywhere about how to do this. How can I configure mod_dbd on my Apache-httpd installation?
I am using OsX and Apache 2.2. I hope there is a way to do this which is the same for both OsX and other Linux version.
I have asked this before wihtout any good answers. I assume it must be possible to do without any difficult recompiling of the Apache, etc.
The Apache documentation for this module contains an example that seems pretty clear - is that enough?
I don't use it because of the limitations of the password hashing which make it incompatible with many existing user databases such as those used for Dovecot IMAP. NB: Dovecot can use other hashing for passwords but requires a somewhat odd format for the password which makes life rather complex. So I use the older mod-auth-mysql