Search Results

Search found 6 results on 1 pages for 'ddawber'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• Dedicated server: managed hosting or manage it myself?

  - by ddawber

  We're currently hosting a number of sites on a self-managed dedicated server. Some companies, however, offer a managed dedicated server hosting service. They offer: Roughly the same server spec Ticketing system support Managed daily backups Virtual firewall (but with a limit of 10 IP addresses allowed through at any one time) Now, this managed hosting is at extra expense - somewhere in the region of $500 per month, and the limit on the number of IP addresses they'll manage on the firewall is also a real pain. My thinking is it would be better and cheaper to Stay with the same host since the dedicated box is fine Get an Amazon AWS account and use their server to manage backups; there are a number of good tools that can be used to automate the process Configure iptables so that I have complete control of the firewall I want to know Is a managed virtual firewall likely to be more secure than me configuring iptables? Whether, in your opinion, it's best to let someone else take care of backups? If, from your experience, there's anything else i'm missing that warrants using managed hosting over a DIY service? I think there is some reluctance to not having managed hosting since a managed host in effect takes responsibility for your server, whereas any hardware or security issues with a server that we manage would mean we are forced to hold our hands up when a client site goes down. That said, I personally don't think a managed host does that much in the day to day running of your server (backups are automatic, OS updates are carried out with ease, etc.).

  Read the article

• Dedicated server: managed hosting or manage it myself?

  - by ddawber

  We're currently hosting a number of sites on a self-managed dedicated server. Some companies, however, offer a managed dedicated server hosting service. They offer: Roughly the same server spec Ticketing system support Managed daily backups Virtual firewall (but with a limit of 10 IP addresses allowed through at any one time) Now, this managed hosting is at extra expense - somewhere in the region of $500 per month, and the limit on the number of IP addresses they'll manage on the firewall is also a real pain. My thinking is it would be better and cheaper to Stay with the same host since the dedicated box is fine Get an Amazon AWS account and use their server to manage backups; there are a number of good tools that can be used to automate the process Configure iptables so that I have complete control of the firewall I want to know Is a managed virtual firewall likely to be more secure than me configuring iptables? Whether, in your opinion, it's best to let someone else take care of backups? If, from your experience, there's anything else i'm missing that warrants using managed hosting over a DIY service? I think there is some reluctance to not having managed hosting since a managed host in effect takes responsibility for your server, whereas any hardware or security issues with a server that we manage would mean we are forced to hold our hands up when a client site goes down. That said, I personally don't think a managed host does that much in the day to day running of your server (backups are automatic, OS updates are carried out with ease, etc.).

  Read the article

• Managed hosting firewall vs managing own firewall

  - by ddawber

  I posted on stackoverflow as to the overall benefits of managed hosting vs non-managed hosting. The more I think about it, it seems to boil down to one question: should I use a managed host because they take care of the firewall, or would I be okay managing my own, software firewall? The sites on the box do get quite a lot of traffic but as for throughput and what-not, it's not something I know much about. Ideally, i'd take my sites over to a Linode stack and manage incoming connections using iptables or an alternative. Here are some example hardware solutions a managed host would provide: Cisco Pix 501, Pix 506, Pix 515 and ASA 5505 and ASA 5510 Firewalls, configurable in a control panel the likes of an enterprise firewall such as FortiGate 110C Aside from this, I do not need managed hosting, so I appreciate your suggestions.

  Read the article

• Custom UIButton Memory Management in dealloc

  - by ddawber

  I am hoping to clarify the processes going on here. I have created a subclass of UIButton whose init method looks like this: - (id)initWithTitle:(NSString *)title frame:(CGRect)btnFrame { self = [UIButton buttonWithType:UIButtonTypeCustom]; [self setTitle:title forState:UIControlStateNormal]; self.frame = btnFrame; return self; } In my view controller I am creating one of these buttons and adding it as a subview: myButton = [[CustomButton alloc] initWithTitle:@"Title" frame:someFrame]; [self.view addSubview:myButton]; In the view controller's dealloc method I log the retain count of my button: - (void)dealloc { NSLog(@"RC: %d", [myButton retainCount]); //RC = 2 [super dealloc]; NSLog(@"RC: %d", [myButton retainCount]); //RC = 1 } The way I understand it, myButton is not actually retained, even though I invoked it using alloc, because in my subclass I created an autorelease button (using buttonWithType:). In dealloc, does this mean that, when dealloc is called the superview releases the button and its retain count goes down to 1? The button has not yet been autoreleased? Or do I need to get that retain count down to zero after calling [super dealloc]? Cheers.

  Read the article

• Creating UIButton using helper method

  - by ddawber

  I have a subclass of UITableView and in it I want to generate number of labels that share the same properties (font, textColor, backgroundColor, etc.). I decided the easiest way to achieve this would be to create a helper method which creates the label with some common properties set: - (UILabel *)defaultLabelWithFrame:(CGRect)frame { UILabel *label = [[UILabel alloc] initWithFrame:frame]; label.font = [UIFont fontWithName:@"Helvetica" size:14]; label.textColor = [UIColor colorWithWhite:128.0/255.0 alpha:1.0]; label.backgroundColor = [UIColor clearColor]; return label; } I use the method like this: UILabel *someLabel = [self defaultLabelWithFrame:CGRectMake(0,0,100,100)]; [self addSubview:someLabel]; [someLabel release]; My concern here is that when creating the label in the method it is retained, but when I then assign it to someLabel, it is retained again and I have no way of releasing the memory when created in the method. What would be best the best approach here? I fee like I have two options: Create a subclass of UILabel for the default label type. Create an NSMutableArray called defaultLabels and store the labels in this: - (UILabel *)defaultLabelWithFrame:(CGRect)frame { UILabel *label = [[UILabel alloc] initWithFrame:frame]; label.font = [UIFont fontWithName:@"Helvetica" size:14]; label.textColor = [UIColor colorWithWhite:128.0/255.0 alpha:1.0]; label.backgroundColor = [UIColor clearColor]; [defaultLabels addObject:label]; [labels release]; //I can release here return [defaultLabels lastObject]; //I can release defaultLabels when done } I appreciate your thoughts. Cheers.

  Read the article

• iPhone memory management: a release after setting self.someProperty = nil

  - by ddawber

  I am reading the LazyTableImages code that Apple have released and they do something to this effect (in an NSOperation subclass): - (void)dealloc { [myProperty release]; [myProperty2 release]; } - (void)main { // // Parse operation undertaken here // self.myProperty = nil; self.myProperty2 = nil; } My thinking is that they do this in case dealloc is called before setting properties to nil. Is my thinking correct here? Are the releases unnecessary, as self.myProperty = nil effectively releases myProperty? One thing I have noticed in this code is that they don't release all retained objects in dealloc, only some of them, which is really the cause for my confusion. Cheers

  Read the article

1