Welcome to the Lounge

10-Jan-14 5:09

Started looking at WCF recently - I have a rule of thumb which states "if you have to mess around with config files to get a software system running then look for a different software system".

Unfortunately I had forgtten about that - which is why I started to look at WCF. I think now I will look elsewhere - 6 hours today of messing about with config files, all to no avail.

Manfred Rudolf Bihy10-Jan-14 5:24

Manfred Rudolf Bihy

10-Jan-14 5:24

Everything you can do via configuration can also be hard coded into you application.
Except why would somebody want to hard code it, if can be configured? Poke tongue | ;-P

Have you already posted an interesting well framed question in one of the forums or the Q&A?
I've been busy today, so I've not been hanging out on CP much.

Cheers!

"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"

Ron White, Comedian

RugbyLeague10-Jan-14 5:29

10-Jan-14 5:29

I did start to post an interesting well framed question but decided to have a rant instead Smile | :)

I have spent all day looking at the various solutions to the problem I am having:

The remote server returned an unexpected response: (413) Request Entity Too Large

but I can't get any of them to work.

Manfred Rudolf Bihy10-Jan-14 5:37

Manfred Rudolf Bihy

10-Jan-14 5:37

RugbyLeague wrote:
but decided to have a rant instead

That's way more amusing anyhow, than answering questions or having a technical discussion. Big Grin | :-D

RugbyLeague wrote:
The remote server returned an unexpected response: (413) Request Entity Too Large

That looks frighteningly familiar. It's been a while though, it must have been around October 2010 when we were pushing out a POC for a customer. Hmmmmm, ...

Let me poke around for a bit in that mushy mess that is my brain (hey it's almost weekend). May be something useful will pop up.

Regards,

— Manfred

"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"

Ron White, Comedian

RugbyLeague10-Jan-14 5:39

10-Jan-14 5:39

I have been poking around all day - hence the rant - but thanks, any help would be much appreciated.

If I had framed a question early on I might have gotten somewhere but after messing about all day with it any question I could have framed would have dripped with bile

Sentenryu10-Jan-14 7:33

Sentenryu

10-Jan-14 7:33

You're just sending more info than the runtime is allowed to accept, to increase the maximum, look here:

Property:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.servicemodel.basichttpbinding.readerquotas%28v=vs.100%29.aspx[^]

Config Element:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms731325%28v=vs.110%29.aspx[^]

You might also want to set the maxRequestLength:

<httpRuntime maxRequestLength="1610612736"/>

(that's set to 1GB)

Edit: You can also use the WCF Configuration editor to have a nice interface to edit the configs, you don't need to edit WCF configs by hand (not such luck for ASP.NET configs Frown | :(

)

RugbyLeague13-Jan-14 23:56

13-Jan-14 23:56

I have tried all that to no avail

Eddy Vluggen10-Jan-14 6:33

Eddy Vluggen

10-Jan-14 6:33

RugbyLeague wrote:
"if you have to mess around with config files to get a software system running then look for a different software system".

Please explain; without argumentation the statement feels as if you're dismissing things merely based on complexity.

Only game-consoles need not be configured.

Bastard Programmer from Hell Suspicious | :suss:

If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]

PIEBALDconsult10-Jan-14 8:26

PIEBALDconsult

10-Jan-14 8:26

Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Only game-consoles need not be configured

That's true of my old NES; but not true on my Xbox and Wii.

PIEBALDconsult10-Jan-14 8:25

PIEBALDconsult

10-Jan-14 8:25

The problem there is that you're not configuring your application; you're configuring IIS.

I always host WCF in my own Window services and avoid that pile of nastiness.

And I write my own configuration files; I don't do it Microsoft's way.

APOD

R. Giskard Reventlov10-Jan-14 5:07

R. Giskard Reventlov

10-Jan-14 5:07

NGC 7293: The Helix Nebula[^]

"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum

me, me, me
me, in pictures

Manfred Rudolf Bihy10-Jan-14 5:30

Manfred Rudolf Bihy

10-Jan-14 5:30

Damn, that almost looks like Sauron's eye.

"Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul."

"... One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie."
, J.R. Tolkien
Cheers!

"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"

Ron White, Comedian

glennPattonWork310-Jan-14 6:17

glennPattonWork3

10-Jan-14 6:17

Wow, I though that when I saw it! OMG | :OMG:

Mike Hankey10-Jan-14 6:54

Mike Hankey

10-Jan-14 6:54

It does doesn't it.

Good eye! Smile | :)

VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.1 ToDo Manager Extension

Relax...We're all crazy it's not a competition!

Mike Hankey10-Jan-14 6:53

Mike Hankey

10-Jan-14 6:53

Awesome, as usual.

Looks like an eyeball, if I stare long enough it may wink? Smile | :)

VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.1 ToDo Manager Extension

Relax...We're all crazy it's not a competition!

SSD Storage for servers

Rage10-Jan-14 2:31

Rage

10-Jan-14 2:31

The rackspace ad (above, in the CP banner) claims advantages of using SSD storage. Does this make sense for cloud servers Confused | :confused:

~RaGE();

I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb

Chris Maunder10-Jan-14 3:03

Chris Maunder

10-Jan-14 3:03

Rack mounted servers still need to access disk space and the faster the better.

Rage10-Jan-14 3:13

Rage

10-Jan-14 3:13

Still don't get it : What matters is the user access time to the "cloud" server, which is by magnitude greater than the server disk space access time, so where is the benefit (from the user point of view) ?

Note: I might have a complete false image of how accessing remote data is working, so if this seems to be the case, feel free to send me to Google school first

~RaGE();

I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb

Shameel10-Jan-14 3:24

Shameel

10-Jan-14 3:24

There is still a difference in the access time between fixed hard disks and SSD. So, no matter what the "cloud access" time is, this difference is definitely going to add to the final equation.

Gregory Gadow10-Jan-14 3:28

Gregory Gadow

10-Jan-14 3:28

"The Cloud" is not some mystical, magical fairyland where data with little wings flit around waiting to be accessed. It must exist in a physical form, at meatspace coordinates, and be connected to a physical network. Solid state drive technology is a good choice for that physical form. And even if your data is off holidaying on The Cloud, there is still a great deal of local storage that MUST occur, including the operating system, virtual memory, etc. Again, solid state drive technology is a good choice.

OriginalGriff10-Jan-14 3:32

OriginalGriff

10-Jan-14 3:32

Shameel is right, but it's bad for the server as well: because a hard disk read is an physical process, the thread locks until it is complete, and no other threads can get accesses serviced until the HDD is finished. The use of an SSD means that one read doesn't have to block another (or at least not for so long) so the actual throughput of the server improves. Better server performance when loaded equals better user experience regardless of any cloud latency.

Never underestimate the power of stupid things in large numbers
--- Serious Sam