Search Results

Search found 1706 results on 69 pages for 'distributed'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 6/69 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • Headaches using distributed version control for traditional teams?

    - by J Cooper
    Though I use and like DVCS for my personal projects, and can totally see how it makes managing contributions to your project from others easier (e.g. your typical Github scenario), it seems like for a "traditional" team there could be some problems over the centralized approach employed by solutions like TFS, Perforce, etc. (By "traditional" I mean a team of developers in an office working on one project that no one person "owns", with potentially everyone touching the same code.) A couple of these problems I've foreseen on my own, but please chime in with other considerations. In a traditional system, when you try to check your change in to the server, if someone else has previously checked in a conflicting change then you are forced to merge before you can check yours in. In the DVCS model, each developer checks in their changes locally and at some point pushes to some other repo. That repo then has a branch of that file that 2 people changed. It seems that now someone must be put in charge of dealing with that situation. A designated person on the team might not have sufficient knowledge of the entire codebase to be able to handle merging all conflicts. So now an extra step has been added where someone has to approach one of those developers, tell him to pull and do the merge and then push again (or you have to build an infrastructure that automates that task). Furthermore, since DVCS tends to make working locally so convenient, it is probable that developers could accumulate a few changes in their local repos before pushing, making such conflicts more common and more complicated. Obviously if everyone on the team only works on different areas of the code, this isn't an issue. But I'm curious about the case where everyone is working on the same code. It seems like the centralized model forces conflicts to be dealt with quickly and frequently, minimizing the need to do large, painful merges or have anyone "police" the main repo. So for those of you who do use a DVCS with your team in your office, how do you handle such cases? Do you find your daily (or more likely, weekly) workflow affected negatively? Are there any other considerations I should be aware of before recommending a DVCS at my workplace?

    Read the article

  • Scrum Board for a distributed team

    - by Falcon
    I am looking for recommendations on a digital Scrum Board which can be shared over the internet. I imagine something like a big tablet on which you can draw and which remote users can access, too. I dislike Scrum software because I think one major benefit of a Scrum Board is its physical presence. It should be hard to ignore. The best solution would be two big tablets on which you can draw and which can be synchronized. Has anyone got product recommendations for something like this? Or would you rather use a software? Kind regards, Falcon

    Read the article

  • Is there a Distributed SAN/Storage System out there?

    - by Joel Coel
    Like many other places, we ask our users not to save files to their local machines. Instead, we encourage that they be put on a file server so that others (with appropriate permissions) can use them and that the files are backed up properly. The result of this is that most users have large hard drives that are sitting mainly empty. It's 2010 now. Surely there is a system out there that lets you turn that empty space into a virtual SAN or document library? What I envision is a client program that is pushed out to users' PCs that coordinates with a central server. The server looks to users just like a normal file server, but instead of keeping entire file contents it merely keeps a record of where those files can be found among various user PCs. It then coordinates with the right clients to serve up file requests. The client software would be able to respond to such requests directly, as well as be smart enough to cache recent files locally. For redundancy the server could make sure files are copied to multiple PCs, perhaps allowing you to define groups in different locations so that an instance of the entire repository lives in each group to protect against a disaster in one building taking down everything else. Obviously you wouldn't point your database server here, but for simpler things I see several advantages: Files can often be transferred from a nearer machine. Disk space grows automatically as your company does. Should ultimately be cheaper, as you don't need to keep a separate set of disks I can see a few downsides as well: Occasional degradation of user pc performance, if the machine has to serve or accept a large file transfer during a busy period. Writes have to be propogated around the network several times (though I suspect this isn't really much of a problem, as reading happens in most places more than writing) Still need a way to send a complete copy of the data offsite occasionally, and this would make it very hard to do differentials Think of this like a cloud storage system that lives entirely within your corporate LAN and makes use of your existing user equipment. Our old main file server is due for retirement in about 2 years, and I'm looking into replacing it with a small SAN. I'm thinking something like this would be a better fit. As a school, we have a couple computer labs I can leave running that would be perfect for adding a little extra redundancy to the system. Unfortunately, the closest thing I can find is Dienst, and it's just a paper that dates back to 1994. Am I just using the wrong buzzwords in my searches, or does this really not exist? If not, is there a big downside that I'm missing?

    Read the article

  • Pros and cons of distributed revision control systems?

    - by Ludwig Weinzierl
    What are the advantages and disadvantages of distributed revision control systems? If you have any experience with distributed systems like Git, Mercurial, Plastic SCM, etc. please share your experience. Tell us what worked well and where problems arose. I'm particularly interested to hear about the use of distributed systems in traditional, commercial, non-open source projects but answers about other uses are also welcome.

    Read the article

  • Memory management with Objective-C Distributed Objects: my temporary instances live forever!

    - by jkp
    I'm playing with Objective-C Distributed Objects and I'm having some problems understanding how memory management works under the system. The example given below illustrates my problem: Protocol.h #import <Foundation/Foundation.h> @protocol DOServer - (byref id)createTarget; @end Server.m #import <Foundation/Foundation.h> #import "Protocol.h" @interface DOTarget : NSObject @end @interface DOServer : NSObject < DOServer > @end @implementation DOTarget - (id)init { if ((self = [super init])) { NSLog(@"Target created"); } return self; } - (void)dealloc { NSLog(@"Target destroyed"); [super dealloc]; } @end @implementation DOServer - (byref id)createTarget { return [[[DOTarget alloc] init] autorelease]; } @end int main() { NSAutoreleasePool *pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init]; DOServer *server = [[DOServer alloc] init]; NSConnection *connection = [[NSConnection new] autorelease]; [connection setRootObject:server]; if ([connection registerName:@"test-server"] == NO) { NSLog(@"Failed to vend server object"); } else [[NSRunLoop currentRunLoop] run]; [pool drain]; return 0; } Client.m #import <Foundation/Foundation.h> #import "Protocol.h" int main() { unsigned i = 0; for (; i < 3; i ++) { NSAutoreleasePool *pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init]; id server = [NSConnection rootProxyForConnectionWithRegisteredName:@"test-server" host:nil]; [server setProtocolForProxy:@protocol(DOServer)]; NSLog(@"Created target: %@", [server createTarget]); [[NSRunLoop currentRunLoop] runUntilDate:[NSDate dateWithTimeIntervalSinceNow:1.0]]; [pool drain]; } return 0; } The issue is that any remote objects created by the root proxy are not released when their proxy counterparts in the client go out of scope. According to the documentation: When an object’s remote proxy is deallocated, a message is sent back to the receiver to notify it that the local object is no longer shared over the connection. I would therefore expect that as each DOTarget goes out of scope (each time around the loop) it's remote counterpart would be dellocated, since there is no other reference to it being held on the remote side of the connection. In reality this does not happen: the temporary objects are only deallocate when the client application quits, or more accurately, when the connection is invalidated. I can force the temporary objects on the remote side to be deallocated by explicitly invalidating the NSConnection object I'm using each time around the loop and creating a new one but somehow this just feels wrong. Is this the correct behaviour from DO? Should all temporary objects live as long as the connection that created them? Are connections therefore to be treated as temporary objects which should be opened and closed with each series of requests against the server? Any insights would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Ruby: Widely Distributed?

    - by Yar
    While I know it's not part of the Posix standard, but how widely distributed is Ruby on Linux, Unix and other *nix's? I ask because I loathe sh and use Ruby whenever I can on Ubuntu and OSX, but I don't want to get too locked in to 'strange' solutions.

    Read the article

  • faking NAT with a VMware distributed switch across multiple hosts

    - by romant
    Have a VM that will act as the router, and will be connected to both networks (NAT + 'real'). I spread the distributed switch across the hosts, although any VM that is not on the same physical host as the router/dhcpd simply doesn't get an IP. So its obviously my dvSwitch config. Has anyone achieved a NAT solution using a dvSwitch before that they could share?! Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How DNS server resolves when web servers are geographically distributed

    - by Supratik
    Hi A domain abc.com has two web servers located in two different location one in India and another in Malaysia. If the request are handled by the servers depending on the location from where the request originates then how DNS server resolves for such geographically distributed servers when my client system is configured to a local DNS server in Indian or a DNS server in Malyasia ? Warm Regards Supratik

    Read the article

  • Deploying Data Mining Models using Model Export and Import, Part 2

    - by [email protected]
    In my last post, Deploying Data Mining Models using Model Export and Import, we explored using DBMS_DATA_MINING.EXPORT_MODEL and DBMS_DATA_MINING.IMPORT_MODEL to enable moving a model from one system to another. In this post, we'll look at two distributed scenarios that make use of this capability and a tip for easily moving models from one machine to another using only Oracle Database, not an external file transport mechanism, such as FTP. The first scenario, consider a company with geographically distributed business units, each collecting and managing their data locally for the products they sell. Each business unit has in-house data analysts that build models to predict which products to recommend to customers in their space. A central telemarketing business unit also uses these models to score new customers locally using data collected over the phone. Since the models recommend different products, each customer is scored using each model. This is depicted in Figure 1.Figure 1: Target instance importing multiple remote models for local scoring In the second scenario, consider multiple hospitals that collect data on patients with certain types of cancer. The data collection is standardized, so each hospital collects the same patient demographic and other health / tumor data, along with the clinical diagnosis. Instead of each hospital building it's own models, the data is pooled at a central data analysis lab where a predictive model is built. Once completed, the model is distributed to hospitals, clinics, and doctor offices who can score patient data locally.Figure 2: Multiple target instances importing the same model from a source instance for local scoring Since this blog focuses on model export and import, we'll only discuss what is necessary to move a model from one database to another. Here, we use the package DBMS_FILE_TRANSFER, which can move files between Oracle databases. The script is fairly straightforward, but requires setting up a database link and directory objects. We saw how to create directory objects in the previous post. To create a database link to the source database from the target, we can use, for example: create database link SOURCE1_LINK connect to <schema> identified by <password> using 'SOURCE1'; Note that 'SOURCE1' refers to the service name of the remote database entry in your tnsnames.ora file. From SQL*Plus, first connect to the remote database and export the model. Note that the model_file_name does not include the .dmp extension. This is because export_model appends "01" to this name.  Next, connect to the local database and invoke DBMS_FILE_TRANSFER.GET_FILE and import the model. Note that "01" is eliminated in the target system file name.  connect <source_schema>/<password>@SOURCE1_LINK; BEGIN  DBMS_DATA_MINING.EXPORT_MODEL ('EXPORT_FILE_NAME' || '.dmp',                                 'MY_SOURCE_DIR_OBJECT',                                 'name =''MY_MINING_MODEL'''); END; connect <target_schema>/<password>; BEGIN  DBMS_FILE_TRANSFER.GET_FILE ('MY_SOURCE_DIR_OBJECT',                               'EXPORT_FILE_NAME' || '01.dmp',                               'SOURCE1_LINK',                               'MY_TARGET_DIR_OBJECT',                               'EXPORT_FILE_NAME' || '.dmp' );  DBMS_DATA_MINING.IMPORT_MODEL ('EXPORT_FILE_NAME' || '.dmp',                                 'MY_TARGET_DIR_OBJECT'); END; To clean up afterward, you may want to drop the exported .dmp file at the source and the transferred file at the target. For example, utl_file.fremove('&directory_name', '&model_file_name' || '.dmp');

    Read the article

  • What alternatives do I have if I want a distributed multi-master database?

    - by Jonas
    I will build a system where I want to reduce single-point-of-failures, and I need a database. Is there any (free) relational database systems that can handle multi-master setups good (i.e where it is easy to add and remove nodes) or is it better to go with a NoSQL-database? As what I have understood, a key-value store will handle this better. What database system do you recommend for a multi-master (cluster) setup?

    Read the article

  • One bigger Virtual Machine distributed across many OpenStack nodes [duplicate]

    - by flyer
    This question already has an answer here: Can a virtualized machine have the CPU and RAM resources of multiple underlying physical machines? 2 answers I just setup virtual machines on one hardware with Vagrant. I want to use a Puppet to configure them and next try to setup OpenStack. I am not sure If I am understanding how this should look at the end. Is it possible to have below architecture with OpenStack after all where I will run one Virtual Machine with Linux? ------------------------------- | VM with OS | ------------------------------- | NOVA | NOVA | NOVA | ------------------------------- | OpenStack | ------------------------------- | Node | Node | Node | ------------------------------- More details: In my environment Nodes are just virtual machines, but my question concerns separate Hardware nodes. If we imagine this Nodes(Novas) are placed on a separate machines (e.g. every has 4 cores) can I run one Virtual Machine across many OpenStack Nodes? Is it possible to aggregate the computation power of OpenStack in one virtual distributed operating system?

    Read the article

  • How To Perform Distributed Website Monitoring?

    - by cballou
    I would like to know how sites like the following perform distributed website monitoring (from multiple checkpoints/countries). pingdom.com, site24x7.com, uptrends.com, siteuptime.com, etc, etc. To be exact, what process would occur in checking if a given domain name went down? If the server finds that the site is down, what is the next step? Would it make a REST API request to a separate server to run the same test and report the results? I have a few theories, including: utilizing host(s) from different countries utilizing proxies from different countries I'm looking for the most proper or correct way to handle this, which can include the usage of servers from multiple countries/hosts.

    Read the article

  • Distributed Server Monitoring Solution

    - by MaterialEdge
    I belong to an independent IT firm that manages and maintains about 50 business clients networks, ranging from small 5 system networks to 200+ systems. Because we are unable to directly monitor each server at these locations (distributed over a very large area) on a regular basis I am looking for a method to monitor and alert us to any problems that may arise so that we can respond quickly with, hopefully, preventative measures. I'm not sure what solutions are available for this type of situation, but something that utilizes a central server at our business with all client servers sending alerts or logs to it for daily monitoring might work best. All these servers are running a Windows Server OS. In your opinion, what would be the best course of action to accomplish this?

    Read the article

  • One bigger Virtual Machine distributed across many Nodes [on hold]

    - by flyer
    I just setup virtual machines on one hardware with Vagrant (this is just a test environment, not production!). I want to use a Puppet to configure them and next try to setup OpenStack. I am not sure If I am understanding how this should look at the end. Is it possible to have below architecture with OpenStack after all where I will run one Virtual Machine with Linux? ------------------------------- | VM | ------------------------------- | NOVA | NOVA | NOVA | ------------------------------- | OpenStack | ------------------------------- | Node | Node | Node | ------------------------------- (In my environment Nodes are just virtual machines, but my question concerns separate Hardware nodes) After some comments... Is it a language barrier, or? This is only my 'virtual environment'. If we imagine this virtual machines are a separate Nodes (e.g. every has 4 cores) the OpenStack is still the same, right? Can I run one Virtual Machine across many Nodes with OpenStack? Is it possible to aggregate the computation power of separate machines in one virtual distributed operating system?

    Read the article

  • NAS device for distributed team

    - by user5959
    We are a distributed team spread across 5 locations. We have a shared drive (1 TB data) at our former location that we are currently accessing via Hamachi VPN. Our shared drive is a network folder on a Windows Server located at one of our locations. The current connection speed is terrible. The upload speed at the current location of the shared drive is very slow. We looking for a NAS device that we can host at another location with better upload speed that all of us can access. I am looking for a NAS device that has these features: Minimal Maintenance as we do not have dedicated IT resources Access data on the device from multiple locations. Ability to create network drive (On Windows Computers Map Network Drive) Upload data from random client computers without having to install software. (Right now, we use LogMeIn Rescue's file manager) Ability handle slow or dropped connections when transferring files (Maximum size 1.5 GB)

    Read the article

  • Hibernate Distributed Cache

    - by DD
    Hi, I'm looking to setup Hibernate with distributed cache where I have one application writing to the DB and another one reading from the DB. Is there an easy way to notify the reading application when the writing one has written through Hibernate? The distributed cache will invalidate the cache but I need the reading application to know a change has been made to refresh its data immediately. Thanks, D

    Read the article

  • Distributed development staff needing a common IP range

    - by bakasan
    I work on a development staff that is geographically distributed, mostly all throughout the state of CA, but several key members also must travel frequently. We rely quite heavily on a 3rd party provider API for a great deal of our subsystems (can't get into who it is or what they do). The 3rd party however is quite stringent on network access and have no notion of a development sandbox. Access is restricted to 2, 3 IP numbers and that's about it. Once we account for our production servers, that leaves us with an IP or two to spare for our dev team--which is still problematic as people's home IP changes, people travel, we have more than 2 devs, etc. Wide IP blocks are not permitted by the 3rd party. Nor will they allow dynamic DNS type services. There is no simple console to swap IPs on the fly either (e.g. if a dev's IP at home changes or they are on the road). As none of us are deep network experts, I'm wondering what our viable options are? Are there such things as 3rd party hosts to VPNs? Generally I think of a VPN as a mechanism to gain access to a home office, but the notion would be a 3rd party VPN that we'd all connect to and we'd register this as an IP origin w/ our 3rd party. We've considered using Amazon EC2 to effectively host a dev environment for each dev and using that to connect. Amazon only gives you so many static IPs however (I believe 5?) so this would only be a stop gap solution until our team size out strips our IP count at Amazon. Those were the only viable thoughts that I had, but again, I'm far from a networking guy. Tried searching for similar threads, but I'm not even sure I know the right vernacular to look around for.

    Read the article

  • Simple Distributed Disconnected way to sync a directory

    - by Rory
    I want to start regularly backup my home directory on my ubuntu laptop, machine X. Suppose I have access to 2 different remote (linux) servers that I can backup to, machines A & B. Machine X will be the master, and should be synced to A and B. I could just regularly run rsync from X to A and then from X to B. That's all I need. However I'm curious if there's a more bandwidth effecient, and hence faster way to do it. Assuming X is going to be on residential style broadband lines, and since I don't want to soak up the bandwidth, I would limit the transfer from X. A and B will be on all the time, however X, will not be, so I'd also like to reduce the amount of time that X is transfering, potentially allowing A and B to spend more time transfering. Also, X won't be connected all the time. What's the best way to do this? rsync from X to A, then from A to B? Timing that right could be troublesome. I don't want to keep old files around, so if I was to rsync, then the --del option would be used. Could that mean something might get tranfered from A to B, then deleted from B, then transfered from A to B again? That's suboptimal. I know there are fancy distributed filesystems like gluster, but I think that's overkill in this case, and might not fit with the disconnected nature.

    Read the article

  • Is this distributed database server idea feasible?

    - by David
    I often use SQLite for creating simple programs in companies. The database is placed on a file server. This works fine as long as there are not more than about 50 users working towards the database concurrently (though depending on whether it is reads or writes). Once there are more than this, they will notice a slowdown if there are a lot of concurrent writing on the server as lots of time is spent on locks, and there is nothing like a cache as there is no database server. The advantage of not needing a database server is that the time to set up something like a company Wiki or similar can be reduced from several months to just days. It often takes several months because some IT-department needs to order the server and it needs to conform with the company policies and security rules and it needs to be placed on the outsourced server hosting facility, which screws up and places it in the wrong localtion etc. etc. Therefore, I thought of an idea to create a distributed database server. The process would be as follows: A user on a company computer edits something on a Wiki page (which uses this database as its backend), to do this he reads a file on the local harddisk stating the ip-address of the last desktop computer to be a database server. He then tries to contact this computer directly via TCP/IP. If it does not answer, then he will read a file on the file server stating the ip-address of the last desktop computer to be a database server. If this server does not answer either, his own desktop computer will become the database server and register its ip-address in the same file. The SQL update statement can then be executed, and other desktop computers can connect to his directly. The point with this architecture is that, the higher load, the better it will function, as each desktop computer will always know the ip-address of the database server. Also, using this setup, I believe that a database placed on a fileserver could serve hundreds of desktop computers instead of the current 50 or so. I also do not believe that the load on the single desktop computer, which has become database server will ever be noticable, as there will be no hard disk operations on this desktop, only on the file server. Is this idea feasible? Does it already exist? What kind of database could support such an architecture?

    Read the article

  • Why should i write a commit message?

    - by acidzombie24
    Why should i write a commit message? I dont want to and i think its stupid every single time. A gui frontend i use which will go unnamed forces you to do it. I hear other doing it everytime even if they are using the VCS on the command line. If i commit several times a day and havent finish a feature what am i writing about? I ONLY ever write a message after many comments and i feel its time for a mini tag or when i do an actual tag. Am i right or am i missing something? also i am using a distributed system

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >