I have been testing Jenkins CI, and now it is time to build a server. What is the best way to go? There are plenty of options, and I don't know what one to choose.
a shared machine, with other server running with it,
a virtual machine, inside a machine used for other servers
a stand-alone machine
use multiple machines with different OS, on each to test each platform?
(I have some web UI tests, based on selenium)
And also, I want a suggestion of the OS to use. I use msbuild, and probably that is only available on Windows... but maybe a linux server, with some sort of builder from mono may be the best way to go.
I am not tied to Jenkins, but it seems to be the best. If you know of better options, let me know.
I need opinions, I need to know what possibilities exist, and if possible, to know what others are doing, and what experiences you have with various setups, so that I can make a solid decision.
Thanks!
First things first. My CI server is a VM running CruiseControl.NET. I dont use Jenkins so I cant really comment on it. From the looks of things, Jenkins is more well-developed than CC.NET.
Per the virtual vs physical question: ultimately, it doesnt really matters as far as CI is concerned. As long as it is visible on the network and has enough resources to perform it's function, the rest is just administration. Personally, I find benefits of virtualization to be worth the extra effort. You can easily add resources, move its physical location, stand up additional VMs to run a cluster. The benefits of virtualization are well known and everybody is doing it these days.
My CI server is on a VMWare ESX server that has a ton of CPU and RAM to dish out. It runs many other VMs on it. I have about 35 sites running through CI and probably 20 are hosted on the machine itself and another 70 sites that are set to build by manually triggering them through the CI dashboard. I have never had any relevant performance issues with it.
Your build server should ideally have the same setup as whatever machine(s) you are planning on deploying your code to. For websites, that would be the same OS as your production servers (probably Windows 2003 or 2008). For desktop applications, I would probably just pick the latest and greatest OS that you are targeting for support and can afford.
Using multiple machines with multiple OSes would only be relevant when you are building desktop applications that you are trying to support on multiple OSes. In this case, having multiple servers would be ideal, but I see that as being a lot of work to get set up. Personally, I would start simple, get everything running and start adding pieces on when they become truly necessary.
As I mentioned, I use CruiseControl.NET. It's been great so far and I am happy with it. Since it is written in .NET and you are using .NET, there are less moving parts that your server needs to get running (I see Jenkins is built on Java). Writing plugins/extensions would be theoretically easier since you already have .NET people in house. I've never written an extension for CC.NET so I cant say that with certainty, though I know it is possible. The down side is the community is small and active development is slow.
Finally, I'll add that it will be A LOT of work to get started. It took me over 6 months to get my CI server ready for production, a few more to migrate all of our projects over to run through it and many more to train the rest of the developers on how to use it or work with it.
So, in summation,
Virtualization is good! (but it doesnt really matter).
You should match you CI environment to whatever envirnoment you are deploying to, if possible.
You better be ready to commit for the long haul.
Continuous integration is great and you wont regret setting up a CI server. Whatever you choose, it will be better than the "cowboy coding" that used to go on :)
EDIT Other answers are posting their process, so I guess I should have done that too! :)
My shop builds LAMP and .NET websites so we needed something that could work effectively with both. We have CC.NET running as the core framework but nearly all of the functionality is performed by custom Nant scripts. We use Nant because it is 1) .NET based and has built in .NET commands and 2) is easy to perform command line operations which form the core of all of our build steps.
CC.NET listens to the SVN server and grabs updates as they are made. CC.NET checks them out and fires off the NANT task that performs all the actual work. For .NET, that means mstest to unit test and msbuild to build and publish. PHP usually just moves the files straight to the destination environment. Then, if all steps were successful, Robocopy will copy the files to the destination server, which was mapped as a network drive during a Group Policy startup script (Windows servers are mapped with net use and LAMP servers are mapped with Webdrive).
We have development servers, staging/QA servers and production servers. Since we work in .NET and LAMP, we have one server per environment for each of these stages - 6 in total and all are virtual. Our development servers are the only ones that are set to a continuous integration build. Staging and production are force-build only along with some other SVN wizardry to prevent accidental deployments. We also build and unit test AcrionScript using MXMLC but that is rare for us.
Here's our setup. We have two virtual servers (a build server and a test server), and then two production servers.
The build server is running TeamCity (for CI) and FinalBuilder (for some of the more complex build jobs that involve editing XML files, changing config settings, installing and registering Windows services).
Most of our applications are ASP, ASP.NET or MVC web apps. TeamCity checks the code out of subversion automatically (triggered by a checkin), compiles anything that needs compiling, deploys the latest pages and DLLs to the IIS web server that's running on the build box.
All our sites have multiple host headers set up in IIS so the same site is listening as www.mysite.com.build, www.mysite.com.test, www.mysite.com. We've set up a DNS wildcard alias on our domain controller, so that *.build points to the build server, *.test points to the test server, and so on.
This means as soon as code has been committed and build by TeamCity, everyone in the company can see it on www.whatever.com.build.
There's then another TeamCity job that uses msdeploy.exe to push individual websites - including their virtual apps and subfolders - from the build server to the test server.
At each stage, TeamCity runs any unit tests that are part of the project, and also runs a separate project that does HTTP requests to various key URLs on our site and makes sure everything is up, running and responding.
Finally, there's a "go-live" task that msdeploys the ENTIRE server from test to live; this means the complete server configuration is completely controlled by TeamCity, which discourages making config changes on live servers since your changes will get overwritten during the next deployment.
TeamCity is fantastic - we've now licensed it because we needed > 20 projects (and LDAP authentication) but the free version served us well for years, and it's an absolutely awesome piece of software. FinalBuilder is expensive but very, very easy to use - if you're cash-rich and time-poor, go for it; if you've got more time than money, stick to Nant or msbuild and write your own steps for editing web.config files, etc.
EDIT: Another detail I missed - we have a test and a live database server. Coders' workstations and the .build servers are all set up to use the test database; the *.test and live servers talk to live data. We use SQL Compare to (manually) push schema changes from the test SQL server to the live SQL server, but normally TeamCity just tweaks the config files between build and test to toggle the database connection string.
I would consider best practice to be:
A seperate build server (doesn't matter if it is vertual or not)
The build server builds the code on check in
Have a seperate deployment server for testing (again virtual doesn't matter)
Have your build deploy to the test server (you can have a seperate build for this i.e. CI build and a Build and Deploy build for testing)
Any unit or integration tests I would run on the build server, manual testing is done on test server
I hope this helps.
My current setup and best practice:
Development projects and environment:
C++ and C# applications, including some web based C# applications.
Windows application.
Subversion.
~30 developers world wide accessing centralized build servers.
Developers commit to the trunk of repositories.
Build scripts:
We employ Visual Build Professional, VBP, www.kinook.com, as a corporate build tool.
Build scripts are hierarchically designed into layers of build scripts, which performs different functions and can be reused.
Build scripts design:
Build machine layer - check lists for required build tools, checks out source codes from SVN trunk.
SVN layer - performs branching, versioning, committing and switching back to trunk.
Build product layer - A build script that builds N number of sub build scripts, where 1 sub build script = 1 project(not VS projects). (Developer friendly)
Sub build script layer - Defines a collection of C#/C++ solutions to be built. Also defines build order dependency. Uses MSBuild /t:Rebuild to build solutions. Uses devenv to build special projects. (Developer friendly)
Daily builds:
Builds 1. to 4. in Build scripts design.
Continuous integration(ci) builds:
Builds 3. and 4. in Build scripts design.
Basic Build environment: ( our more complex projects are build upon these principles )
Separated daily build server from continuous integration build server, also separate test servers for testing after each successful continuous integration build. ( 1 x daily build server, 1 x ci build server, N x test servers )
VM with Windows Servers with multiple CPUs as build machines. (For MSBuild /m)
Other Windows OSes as test machines.
Cruise Control.NET, CCNet, installed on all build/test machines.
Daily builds controlled by CCNet and runs at schedule time daily.
Continuous integration builds triggered by CCNet upon commits.
Build behavior:
Daily build starts at midnight, publishes build output to network shared drive, eg: \share\daily_build. ( Yes, we still use shared drives. ) :)
Upon a successful daily build, ci build will automatically be triggered to clean up working copy, check out source codes and build from scratch. (MSBuild /t:Build)
CI build then copies the built binary output to network shared drive, eg: \share\ci_build. ( Notice, 2 different folders, 1 for daily build, 1 for ci build )
Development environment:
Developers execute batch file that gets up-to-date ci build output to their development machine.
Developers and project managers relies on ci build status, has CCNet Tray installed to get immediate outcome of builds.
Developers sometimes hold lotteries to see who breaks the build, and punish by making him/her bottoms up a beer on Fridays. :D
Hope this helps.
I would suggest a seperate physical build server for one simple reason... It gets buy-in with management.
Once they have actually had to fork out money they become a lot more interested in how the Continuous Integration is going.
Related
My team uses compiler directives to create different versions of our product for different stages (debug, test, release) but now we want to move a CI/CD strategy and we are discussing whether it is a good idea to use compiler directives at all since the artifact(s) produced for one configuration cannot be used for another, for example, our CI server runs the build process with the test configuration and all stages from the build process pass including UI automated tests, the artifacts created in this process cannot be deployed to production because for production the application needs to be compiled using the release configuration thus creating a new set of untested artifacts to deploy the production environment, which, in my opinion makes the work performed in the previous stage(s) obsolete because you probably want to run your tests against the newly created artifacts.
Has anyone had a similar similar situation and if so how did you address it with your team. Is it a good idea to use c# compiler directives when you want to move to a CI/CD strategy?
We had a similar problem two years ago. We were re-building our code for each environment (DEV, QA, MOCK, PROD) and in some cases check-ins would occur between environments and invalidate all our testing. When we started our CD journey we knew we had to get to a build once/deploy many scenario. We used MSDeploy to deploy all our code. This includes web sites/services, windows services, scheduled tasks and SQL databases.
We place all environment differences in our config files and control the transformations via Parameterization in MSDeploy. Parameterization is applied at deploy time. Setup consists of a parameters.xml file that defines what needs to be parameterized and a SetParameters.[environment].xml file for each environment with pertinent values for that enviornment.
could someone point me to the right documents or describe how Docker would help (or what should be Dockerized) in the following scenario:
4 environments: Developer's laptop, DEV, TEST, PRO
C# web MVC application running under IIS8.
Databse running on Oracle dedicated Exadata server.
Source Control is TFS-TFS, with builds under TFS and a binary repository with rest apis. (Proprietary)
Deployment in TEST and PRO must follow a strict approval process.
with all that said, I know I am not in the most common environment for going to Docker, however I specifically selected this use case in order to get the most of the answers.
I can follow 2 path:
Either try to Dockerize the DEV environment itself, but I doubt Visual Studio can be Dockerized today? So that would leave my with running a smalle database engine in dock as well a maybe a mono instance for running the application, however I doubt developers will see an added value compared to the built-in VSS features.
I could also try to dockerize the 'run' environments, but again for IIS I am not sure Docker will do.
If the answer is "nothing will do on Microsoft stack", please switch to Java, SVN, Jenkins, RAD and WAS where appropriate, that would match some of my use cases too.
For dealing with DEV/TEST/PROD see Dockerfile and dev/test/prod environment
You may have a look at the (343) Oracle Database in container you can find in the registry hub https://registry.hub.docker.com/search?q=oracle&searchfield=
If you choose another webserver replacing IIS, it is easy to use a container with Nginx or Apache or...
I am developing a C#, MVC4, EF5 Code First application on .NET in Visual Studio 2012 and have used the VS publish mechanism to deploy it to an Azure Website with an Azure SQL Database.
I now want to use Git and GitHub for version control and involve others in the project.
However, although I am familiar with using Git in a LAMP environment, I have no experience of using Git with Windows, Azure Websites and a compiled environment.
I would like to use the Azure Website as the production server, another Azure Website as a Staging server, developer Windows machines using Visual Studio for development and GitHub as the central repository.
There is a helpful article here: http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/develop/net/common-tasks/publishing-with-git/ . I can get my head around what would be needed here for, say, a PHP application on Azure. But I am unsure of the best approach with a compiled application and what I can achieve using Azure Websites and Visual Studio.
A nudge or two in the right direction would be greatly appreciated!
don't publish from VS to azure, instead setup your azure website to pull from the github repo. the deployment process compiles your solution.
watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NGieL0tinw&feature=youtu.be&hd=1 or read http://vishaljoshi.blogspot.com/2012/09/continuous-deployment-from-github-to.html
Also SocttGu announced this on his blog # http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2012/09/17/announcing-great-improvements-to-windows-azure-web-sites.aspx he also talks about a cool feature of publishing branches, this will nail your requirement for a stage server and production server. Have a stage branch and a production branch and merge to them as desired. see the section "Support for multiple branches"
looks like they added support for private repos finally.
appharbor is a competitor to azure that does something similar.
You are basically introducing a new step with the requirement that the source code must be compiled before it can be deployed to the server. Where you implement this step is up to you. You could:
Ensure that your target server has the capabilities to compile the source code (some Continuous Integration tools could help with this, such as CruiseControl.NET). This has the caveat that the target server be able to compile source code (possibly even requiring Visual Studio to be installed), so that may not be an option.
Check the compiled binaries into source control. You could keep these compiled binaries separate from the main source branch, to keep things clean. Deploy the binaries to the target server.
Some hybrid of the previous two options is also possible; you could set up a Continuous Integration server with CruiseControl.NET, which can check out the current source, build it, and check the resulting binary back into a special branch, then deploy that branch to your target Server.
I have a small .NET WinForms application, and couple of linux servers, DEV and CL1,CL2..CLN (DEV is development server and CL* are servers which belons to our clients, they are in private networks and it's a kind of production servers)
I want an update mechanism so that
(1) i develop a new version and publish it to a DEV
(2) users of DEV-server install latest version from DEV
(3) users of CL2 (employees of client2) install stable version from CL-2 directly
(4) application checks for updates using server it was installed from (so, if it was installed from CL-2, it should check CL-2 for updates)
(5) i should be able to propogate the update to a selected CL-server (using just file copy & maybe sed; not republishing), if i want that (and if i don't, that CL-server will have an old version until manually i update it)
I tried to use clickonce, but looks like it meets only first two requirements.
What should i do?
ClickOnce should handle 1-4 to be honest. All that would be needed is that for each site you want to deploy/update from, you'll need it to have its own publish, which after looking at your specifications is not incorrect to do.
What you could then do in order to make 5. applicable, is create an automated process to re-publish the file. This could perform a publish and then upload to the correct server.
Remember that ClickOnce needs a new manifest per version, and a new version requires a publish, so I'm not sure that you'll get around 5. with a simple file replacement.
Kyle is right. But for the 5th note, you just need to copy the deployment, and then use mage to modify the installation URL and point it to the new server, and then re-sign the manifests.
I support an app that we deploy to a DEV, QA, PROD servers. The way I handled this is that
I created created a cmd file that has command line calls to MSBUILD. It builds the app once for each server with the appropriate URLs and switches. I give my DEV and QA builds a different AssemblyName that way I can run all 3 environments side by side. This way my build process is automated and I don't have to publish at all.
Here's an article that describes the parameters you can use.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms165431(VS.80).aspx
#Kyle,
For the above solution can the different versions run side by side or do you get errors indicating the app is already installed.
What is the best strategy for making changes to a specific file within a C# .NET project and a DEV server and then moving that file to a different environment, say server B? I noticed it always wants me to recompile on the destination server and I figured I was doing something wrong because I didn't think I would have to (plus the server isn't in-house so it is really slow and time consuming).
Any suggestions or strategies you or your company uses would be appreciated.
Make sure you are using a Web Application project where it compiles a DLL, not web site which uses loose code files.
You could use a source code versioning system like Subversion.
use a source control program for source files (like SubVersion) and Cruise Control for binaries built out of those files...
For web application development my experience has been:
Developers have a development environment on their local machines that is attached to source control
A DEV web server with shares to the projects created allows developers to COPY files to the web application folders manually.
A TEST web server where MSI installations ONLY are used to distribute the changes for UAT
A PROD web server where MSI installations ONLY are used to distribute the UAT approved MSI
The size of projects I am involved with usually makes build scripts overkill, most times a project is being worked on it is built many times for debugging etc.