Tech Ed: Connected Systems Infrastructure Track

re: Tech Ed: Connected Systems Infrastructure Track

Martin Hellspong — Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:20:00 GMT

Will all these sessions be available at TechEd Europe as well?

Only a few of these interesting sessions are listed under the Connected Systems track at http://www.mseventseurope.com/TechEd/05/Pre/Content/SessionList.html#con

For example, none of the sessions on BizTalk Server 2006 are on the list for Europe.

re: Tech Ed: Connected Systems Infrastructure Track

Rebecca Dias — Thu, 03 Mar 2005 21:11:00 GMT

Martin,
Let me know what is most interesting. The Tech Ed Europe team takes the content we develop and tries to customize it for their audience. I provide them input into that process. We are currently in discussion. Your feedback would be great. Remember that the web-site may not list everything in their plans yet.

re: Tech Ed: Connected Systems Infrastructure Track

Goutham Sukumar — Sat, 05 Mar 2005 19:48:00 GMT

Martin,
Could you please elaborate on the top pain points you have on the deployment area, i would like to hear more about the major areas to touch upon.

re: Tech Ed: Connected Systems Infrastructure Track

Martin Hellspong — Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:35:00 GMT

Hello Mr. Sukumar.

You asked me about the top pain points I have on the deployment area. Here's my rather lengthy reply :)

We mainly use Scott Colestock's NAnt-scripts for deployments, since we quickly concluded that it is absolutely essential to have an install script to perform deploytime configuration. We think it is practically impossible to perform all required steps manually w/o mistakes. It would take a really long time, good nerves and a lot of heavy-duty mousework to deploy manually into the production environment!

Our customers often want BizTalk after having seen the BizTalk Mapper in action, and heard some other appealing integration arguments. They expect/hope their own competent development staff to instantly be productive with this great tool. When we talk them through the finer points of deployment, they get really disappointed that they might need help from external consultants just to handle deployment of some simple change to their BizTalk configuration.

Also they do not like the idea that to deploy the same simple change they might need to completely shut down everything currently running, remove everything, essentially reverting to a blank installation, and then reinstalling everything again. Of course there are ways to partition your solution so that say redeployment of order processing do not interfere with say ongoing customer registration, but that instead complicates the deployment scripts, if for example "OrderProcessingOrchestration" is dependant on the same send port "SendToERP" as is "CustomerRegistrationOrchestration".

Also, the customers are surprised that VS.NET "Deploy" command.
* Does not work remotely.
* Does not handle redeploy for solutions partitioned into separate assemblies like schema-assembly, orchestration-assembly and pipeline-assembly.
* Does not perform bindings.
* Does not help with adding binding information to new (currently undeployed) orchestrations with "specify later"-ports.

I recently did a hands-on ad-hoc demo (=no scripted deploy) including a flat file transform in a pipeline, an orchestration, and a map, all housed inside one single assembly) for a few (competent) developers from a large potential customer, and the number of manual configuration steps, biztalk explorer refreshes, and host instance restarts and deployment related problems I encountered and had to solve made them a bit put down with the entire BizTalk concept we offered. I tried to explain that we would normally setup a deployment script to avoid all this, but had to agree that deployment, even scripted, is much more complicated than most people initially think. They now seem more inclined to handle a lot of "simpler" integration scenarios outside of BizTalk just because it seems too complicated to do really simple things with it.

Below are some of the deployment related problems we face in an ongoing project.

In the production environment:

* How to handle updates to the production environment with messages constantly arriving at the receive locations
* Avoid receiving messages when receive ports are running but orchestrations are stopped/undeployed -> "could not find matching subscription"
* Never, ever, lose messages.
* Minimize downtime.
* A seemingly "simple" redeploy like a new element in a schema often needs to stop and undeploy everything because of interdependencies, assuming one orchestration assembly and one separate schema assembly upon with the orchestration assembly is dependant.
* What happens with currently running/suspended orchestration instances when stopping BizTalk and undeploying orchestrations? Seems they must all be terminated before allowing un/redeploy (unless doing "side-by-side").
* Sometimes it is possible to stop the receive ports, and wait until all running orchestrations have had time to finish, but this is of course impossible for real long-running orchestrations. Needs side-by-side versioning of orchestrations.
* Very delicate ordering requirements of undeploy and deployment of various artifacts.
* Different if side-by-side w/different version numbers, or update with same version.
* Stop relevant ports first
* Make sure no interesting orchestration instances are alive. Else wait!
* Redeploy
* Restart BizTalk to reload assemblies.
* Side-by-side even more complex, but required with long-running orchestrations!
* No samples or external tools (Scott Colestock's NAnt-deployment-scripts) seems to be built for:
* (re)deployment with side-by-side versioning
* correctly handle redeploy with messages constantly arriving at the receive locations
* probably because there are no generic solution, and even getting the specific solution for your specific BizTalk project right is hard.
* We have a few orchestrations that gets executed frequently and runs for a minute or so, so we need to stop the ports, and wait for those to end before redeploying. Unfortunately we have not had time to incorporate this behaviour in our deployment scripts, so we need to remember to do this manually.
* We have not had the time and energy to fully investigate the side-by-side scenario, and change our deployment procedure to that method. Needs a few custom tools and major modifications of the deployment scripts in order to work as well as our current scripts.

* At least with Scott Colestock's NAnt-scripts, redeploy does undeploy based on new bindings (which for example does not handle a rename of a port or orch)
* Need to store deployed config with new name after successful deploy, and undeploy using that.
(Avoid removing/uninstalling that file during installation of update components)
* Probably possible to extract current bindings with BTSDeploy Export, and undeploy using that.

* Deploy HAT Message Property Tracking settings and Orchestration/Pipeline Inbound/Outbound message bodies
* Message property tracking settings are reset on redeploy.
* Had to build custom tool to re-configure message property tracking after each redeploy, but before receiving any messages, since tracking is a requirement.
* However... orchestration and pipeline tracking settings are *not* reset on redeploy.

During development:
* Chicken-or-egg situation when adding new orchestrations with a scripted environment.
* Must have orch in binding file, but cannot export bindings before first deploy.
* Therefore one often has to do some hand-editing of the binding files.
* This has proved to be a major problem for our junior developers. Re-deploying with the NAnt-script works great when they only update the assemblies, but when they need to add or change the configuration of ports/orchs they sometimes get stuck in limbo getting things half deployed, half undeployed, not being able to get out of the mess by themselves. They cannot undeploy because "something" they cannot find among the myriad of existing ports is referencing a schema or pipeline they try to remove, and therefore they cannot deploy and are also unable to revert to an older version!

* Deploy on different machines with different configuration, for example a test server w/o MSMQ/T Adapter
* We have development machines we cannot install MSMQ/T on, because they need dynamic IP and MSMQ.
* Have to replace MSMQ/T with FILE adapter in binding files.
* This particular scenario simplified with the recent release of the MSMQ adapter.
* This is also made simpler by the latest release of Scott Colestock's NAnt-scripts, which we haven't had time to migrate to.

* No way to automatically increment btproj file version and assembly version (current version updaters assume attributes AssemblyInfo.cs file)
* Sometimes the MSI-setup seems to not replace existing DLLs when upgrading (not deploying to biztalk, but rather installing the necessary scripts and assemblies to do so) maybe because the version numbers of the DLLs have not changed, although this might be due to something else. (Not a BizTalk-specific problem in any case)

* No way to automatically increment installer version (and product/package code) - also not a BizTalk-specific problem, but stops us from making a fully automated build and deploy process, without buying or making custom tools.

/Martin
Software Engineer
Softronic Syd AB
www.softronic.se
Sweden

re: Tech Ed: Connected Systems Infrastructure Track

Scott Woodgate (MSFT) — Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:03:00 GMT

Martin,

Given your feedback above I strongly advise you to attend TechEd :).

re: Tech Ed: Connected Systems Infrastructure Track

Goutham Sukumar — Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:12:00 GMT

Martin,
Your feedback is super useful! Thanks
-Goutham

re: Tech Ed: Connected Systems Infrastructure Track

Martin Hellspong — Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:47:00 GMT

Scott,

I'd love to attend all the above BTS2006-sessions at TechEd *Europe*, (hint, hint) especially Goutham Sukumar's of course :-) Glad to be of some assistance!

Looking forwards to any and all improvements on deployment for BTS2006 ;-)

...
[Matthias] Look, I don't think it ought to be blasphemy, just saying "Deployment"!
[Women disguised as bearded men] Aiiih! He did!
[Priest] You're only making it worse for yourself!
[Matthias] Making it worse? How could it be worse? Deployment, Deployment, Deployment!
[Women disguised as bearded men] Aiiih!
[Priest] I'm warning you! If you say Deployment once more...
[Rock thrown at Priest] *Bladonk*
[Priest] Right! Who threw that?
[Matthias] Hehehe...
[Priest] Come on! Who threw that?
[Women disguised as bearded men] She did! She did! She did! Him! Him! Him!
[Priest] Was it you?
[Woman II] Yes.
[Priest] Right...
[Woman II] Well, you did say Deployment!
[Women disguised as bearded men] Aiiih!
[Rocks thrown at Woman II] *Multiple Bladonks*
[Priest] Stop! Stop! Will you stop that! Stop it! Now, look! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you understand? Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say Deployment!
[Women disguised as bearded men] Aiiih!
[Rocks thrown at Priest] *Multiple Bladonks*
[Priest] Aaargh!
[Large boulder crushing Priest] *Bladonk*
[Woman III] Good shot!
[Women disguised as bearded men] *Applause*

Versioning at Tech-Ed 2005

Don Smith — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 04:30:00 GMT

Versioning at Tech-Ed 2005

Don Smith (dev4net) — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 04:30:00 GMT

TechEd BOF Sessions

Service Station, by Aaron Skonnard — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:13:00 GMT

Vinoski is Right (Contract First)

Business Implications of Web Services — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:39:00 GMT

Teche Ed sells out while installing Whidbey Beta 2

Business Implications of Web Services — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:23:25 GMT

What?&nbsp; How is it possible that Tech Ed is sold out so soon?&nbsp; Well, I am glad I was forcing...

Tech Ed: Technical Expert at CSI Cabanas

Robert Hurlbut's .NET Blog — Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:55:51 GMT

Reckless Tech Ed Connected Systems Infrastructure Track | Paid Surveys

Reckless Tech Ed Connected Systems Infrastructure Track | Paid Surveys — Sat, 30 May 2009 02:32:56 GMT

PingBack from http://paidsurveyshub.info/story.php?title=reckless-tech-ed-connected-systems-infrastructure-track

Reckless Tech Ed Connected Systems Infrastructure Track | Outdoor Ceiling Fans

Reckless Tech Ed Connected Systems Infrastructure Track | Outdoor Ceiling Fans — Sun, 31 May 2009 16:18:53 GMT

PingBack from http://outdoorceilingfansite.info/story.php?id=5163

Reckless Tech Ed Connected Systems Infrastructure Track | Insomnia Cure

Reckless Tech Ed Connected Systems Infrastructure Track | Insomnia Cure — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:10:33 GMT

PingBack from http://insomniacuresite.info/story.php?id=8347

Reckless Tech Ed Connected Systems Infrastructure Track | bird baths

Reckless Tech Ed Connected Systems Infrastructure Track | bird baths — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:59:30 GMT

PingBack from http://cutebirdbaths.info/story.php?id=1894

Reckless Tech Ed Connected Systems Infrastructure Track | internet marketing tools

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 07:12:38 GMT

PingBack from http://einternetmarketingtools.info/story.php?id=21695