We have a production environment with three nodes under a load balancer. The nodes are windows 2008 R2 servers with IIS 7.5. The web application is installed in all three servers. Recently, we see that many users have issues working with the web application like;
They get logged out (I think session is lost)
The application takes the user to a different page from the page they are working on automatically
Sometimes the css and styles does not gets loaded completely
This is turning out to be critical in our case since we have more than 200 live users working with the system and they all are experiencing problems. At first we thought the issue is with load balancer and so we asked them to use the server directly without hitting the load balancer but there again we found the above issues.
Symantec 11 was installed in these servers and everything was working fine. Recently we upgraded to 12.1.3001.165.
Is this related to Symantec 12.1.3001.165.
I enabled failed request tracing and found few errors like.. Event: MODULE_SET_RESPONSE_ERROR_STATUS (Module Name: IIS Web Core) Event: MODULE_SET_RESPONSE_ERROR_STATUS (Module Name: DynamicCompression)
Could anyone help us fix the above issues. Any help will be appreciated.
Lost sessions are usually caused by combining in-process session state with multiple processes or servers. If it's still happening without the load balancer, check the "Maximum Worker Processes" setting for your AppPool (Advanced Settings -> Process Model). Anything other than "1" means you have a "web garden", with multiple processes serving requests for the same application.
Maximum Worker Processes = 1
The same machine key is specified in all the servers.
CSS works fine but when the user does a ctrl+F5 to reload, some times (very rarely) the css does not load and the site will look odd without the styles.
I am not sure if the session is getting lost or the IIS crashes or if Symantec endpoint is blocking something...its a bit weird..
Management wants people to use remote desktop applications to access testers (multi-million dollar units located in various factories throughout the world) for debug, people in the US can use the ones in Asia during not production hours, etc. to save costs (maximize tester use and minimize travel).
Management reports that people have complained they do not want to because the remote desktop connection is slow. I have asked many many people who do this if there is an issue and they generally do not report any issues, but management insists there is.
Management has therefore asked me to review the remote application software used (currently VNC and Microsoft Remote desktop) and quantify, with data, the performance of these or other options.
My initial thought was to capture screen frame rates using something like Fraps, but Fraps does not seen to catch many non game applications, and installing games on the testers is probably not going to fly.
so given the background, anyone have any thoughts as to how I might measure this in some way?
We have remote desktop servers installed at the office for remote programers to use.
I did a lot of research on this, and they have special hardware that optimizes the remote workstation experience.
Plus you can setup a hyper visor, and run several virtual machines that serve as remote workstations, so you can load up 2 or 3 or them in the same box. With graphics, you need one hell of a GPU like the NVidia Quatro Card for fast processing.
Most slow remote sessions are from the host not being able to run fast enough, to send the remote screen data across the wire and back.
I know of a lot of companies in the middle east, in which the employees remote in from the UAE into Saudi Arabia, so they don't have to live there and work.
I just bought a Dell Solution and let my friend set it up for me, and it works fine. No complaints so far from my remote contractors.
As far as speed testing goes, I did planning first, so it wasn't really an issue.
While I assume you only tried to be helpful, please note:
- He didn't ask for a CDN-provider but for a software stack.
- Linking to commercial websites is considered spamming if the OP didn't explicitly ask for it.
To avoid being reported for spamming I would suggest you change your answer to just recommend using any CDN-provider instead of self-hosting static content.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
I have installed 64 bit SVN Subversion both on server and client machine. Now, the problem is how should I access the server? I read a lot, but there are no clear cut mentioning what should be done for accessing the Repo Browser URL.
What I have done is,
1. Installed 64 bit Tortoise SVN version both in server (eg: 188.8.131.52) and client machine (eg: 184.108.40.206)
2. Created new folders in E drive of server, E:\svn\NewRepository.
3. Then, open command prompt, and run the command
svnadmin create --fs-type fsfs NewRepository
This ran successfully and created some configuration files in E drive.
4. I have created manually folders like branch, trunk and tag in E:\svn\NewRepository folder.
Now, how will I access this folders from my client machine(220.127.116.11)? should i start with http:// or svn://. Please help.
Try installing VisualSVN. This will allow you to access your SVN repos via the browser.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
So as not to be seen as self-promoting with a URL, please note that the domain names used here are obviously faked. I'm really just after some logical explanation of the situation described below.
My main company website, sample.com is hosted. I was checking the error logs and found quite a few where the referrer was listed as someothername.com. Out of curiosity, I pasted the referrer (someothername.com) into a browser and was greeted with my company's homepage! I ran a ping on someothername.com and it shows my dedicated IP address. I also ran a ping on my sample.com and it also shows my dedicated IP address. WTF? How can another domain name point to my dedicated IP address? Is it possible that somebody screwed up a DSN record with their registrar? I just did a lookup on the someothername.com and see that they changed their records more than a few months back, but then, it seems like they might have noticed it by now.
Now, it just so happens that for the past few months, certain web resources at my hosted site have been acting flaky...static xml files become unavailable, then a few seconds later, it's fine...images failing to load with the same behavior, a quick refresh and they now show up. It doesn't seem to me like the first thing would have anything to do with these problems, but the timing does seem weird.
Having multiple domain names resolving to the same IP address is perfectly reasonable. The server typically uses the "host" header to determine which site hosted on that address to route the request to, usually with a fall-back site for unrecognised hosts.
However, if the other site isn't associated with your company, and you're not using shared hosting, it sounds like someone's made a mistake with their DNS records. You could try running a "whois" query on the other domain to see if you can contact the owners to let them know.
Having a second domain pointing to your IP address wouldn't cause any technical problems. If you're worried about your company's site appearing for requests to the other domain, you could add a dummy site to your server with the specific host header, which would serve up a static HTML page notifying visitors of the mistake.
Richard, Thanks for the quick answer! I looked through the account information for my web host and it does not mention 'shared' anywhere. I think the issue lies with an incorrect DNS record and looking at my web stats (hits almost doubled) it all started back in August...yep, it has been at least half a year since I checked web stats or error logs!
I suppose I should be a nice guy and at least inform my web host...maybe it's something they have to sort out, or at the very least they can tell the owner of the other domain about the problem. Thanks again!