At CodeProject we spend an awful lot of time playing with room heaters, or as others like to call them, "servers". Over the years we've seen it all, some of it smoking, most of it usually working just nicely until something happens.
What that something is can be hard to find so we've created a quiet place for those battle scarred and frustrated to get a little help.
Are there Wordpress (or some alternative) hosting companies that could meet these requirements:
- Host many sites
- Has a backend that allows me to switch between the sites to edit/add pages quickly
- Has all of the same features as what I'm using on Wordpress.com's free version now.
Currently, I'm using Wordress.com's free version to get things set up. If I go through at site, I'll have to pay for each site annually, which pushes the up front investment to almost 4 digits after only 3 sites.
I'm unclear if there are advantages to going through Wordpress.com versus another hosting provider.
Are there plugin's that only Wordpress.com offers?
Does Wordpress.com take a portion of your advertising revenue if you have your site hosted there?
Are there hosting providers who offer additional functionality over worpress.com?
Are there Wordpress hosting companies that will host many sites with an interface like Wordpress.com or better?
Better is of course subjective. And it depends on what you actually want to do. There are a huge number of alternatives.
If you are targeting a specific industry/topic then finding a Content Management System that supports that would probably be helpful.
Naturally easy = simple and hard = powerful. So you will need to figure out what you needs are now and for the future. Might want to evaluate that first so you do not need to recreate everything in the future.
The chat functionality is developed on a PHP platform and we are using ratchet as our framework. when its hosted on a server with no SSL installed its working as expected. when SSL is installed on the same server, the functionality is not working. The error in back-end is connection time out. We tried steps given in different discussions is stack overflow, no help. Seems challenging !! Suggestions are most welcome, regarding the issue. Thanks in Advance.
Is this the appropriate place to ask questions and discuss the process (and vendors and prices and business aspects, etc.) of Domain Name Registration and Renewal ?
At the moment I have ten renewals facing me in three months from today, and I have this notion floating around in my head that a little advice here on CodeProject just might be worth the time spent in learning from some smarter people who know this stuff better than I do.
Anyway, does the title, "Hosting and Servers" include Registrars and Domain Names ?
Or is there a better place to ask folks who are smarter on that stuff ?
Networks are serial of course. They handle multiple requests, but serially.
Presumably "concurrent connections" means open sockets - perhaps because you are not sure that the server is keeping them open? Or perhaps because firewall(s) might be dropping requests if limits are exceeded?
If you are not sure which, then if it was me, I would want to check with the actual server rather than a general tool. Since the server application itself could be the problem rather than the network and/or firewalls.
Rather simple to write code to do database (relational) connection testing. Just open connection and do simple do nothing query in a loop. Then wrap that in a loop for multiple connections.
More difficult for modern usage besides database since it is usually ReST (http) because the connection closes after the request. Thus what you really need to do is identify a rest call that takes a while. And really if you cannot do that they you need to put a Rest call in place that does take a while. Perhaps having it do nothing but return ok and have a sleep for 5 seconds or so before it returns to the ok. I will note that you could write http code that would keep the connection open but that is not normal and as such seems suspect to test in the first place.
If you can't control the server then you are going to need to bombard it with requests and that could incorrectly report results for normal firewall rules put into place to prevent DNS attacks.
Any tool of any sort requires understanding, configuration and even some messing about to get it up and running correctly.
Also why a "range of ports". Servers do not typically support more than several ports and functionality and even rules are different. Certainly shouldn't be doing performance testing on an app unless you know what that app does.
Just a warning, 'port scanning' is something that network infrastructures will flag and anomalous behavior and if it was me I would not do that unless I had it in writing (actual paper) from a superior that that is what they wanted done. That can lead to civil and criminal penalties and you want to be protected.
Posting this right here as I belive that this is a generic issue.
Right now if you do app development in most cases you are also code signing the app, using your favorite tool and a private key.
Since February, due to Microsoft adopting a new set of standards, issuers are obliged to deliver the digital certificates on hardware mediums aka USB tokens
Right now if you do app development in most cases you are also code signing the app
Not me. I figure if they have access to the server such that they can replace components then everything is already compromised. Not to mention that if they can do so in a useful manner then I would suspect an inside job as well (which the vast majority of breaches are anyways.)
Server receives a request for a particular client app, based on the request param's server changes the app's resources then code signs it, replying with the final result.
Not sure I understand what that scenario is suggesting.
Code signing involves using a certificate when the code is built (part of the CM build process) to provide security when the application runs. It allows the application to verify resources that it loads, such as a library.
That is a limited scope solution. All that is required is that a local machine (not cloud) is using for the final step of the process before delivery.
Your statement above suggests you are doing something in the normal client message handling scheme. That would be outside the scope of what I laid out.
Now I can see that if you are using a cloud server to do your builds then that would appear to be a problem for normal code signing. But your description would not seem to jive with that.