IIS - Why?
randyv
Posts: 166
I'm in the throws of trying to install SQL Monitor 2.0. 
I will hazard a prediction that your support team will regret the decision to use IIS. :?
I've had to deal with the never ending struggle to install various products; all of which have the same common assumption - "oh, we will use IIS". :shock:
To be blunt, IIS is a lousy implementation of a web service. Like many 'embedded' services in Windows, there is a never-ending struggle between 'gui and easy to use' and 'comprehensive and functional'.
I'm sure that after a week of struggle we will eventually get this working, as we have done with many other IIS instances. We will manage DESPITE Microsoft's intolerably obtuse and deficient documentation, and the inevitable failure of the design team to take into account (because face it you cannot; this is the trade-off one makes when one chooses some other vendor's 'platform' as something to implement on; you give up control of your own desitny) every possible configuration option someone might have running on the server they install SQL Monitor 2 on.
It is unfortunate that you chose IIS. Red Gate has buit a reputation of having easy to use, 'simple' applications at reasonable prices. This thing has definitely outgrown 'simple'. You might have managed 'modestly complex' if you had used another web server or deployed your own. Choosing IIS was a mistake.
That's just my $.02; but it is built on years of having to deal with this deficient web service in Windows.
I'm already on my own because the server we run the monitor on already has multiple sites configured on it; adding yet another is not a trivial thing to do - mainly because every vendor that uses IIS seems to make an apriori assumption that theirs will be the first web site to run on IIS on the server; also many have peculiar requirements - some want this port, some want that port etc. IIS just isn't that flexible, and heaven help the poor schmuck that through the luck of the draw gets two vendor applications that both want port 80.
Your documentation, while more comprehensive on options than most I've seen doesn't handle my situation here. It is just too bad that everyone assumes IIS is a satisfactory option for web serving; it is not.
I understand and support the design goal; I only regret your choice of technology; hope you don't come to regret it. I predict this will be your support nightmare - a high percentage of calls where you have to finally say "well, that is a Microsoft support issue, we don't handle the configuration of IIS to that level of detail" and that is where your customer sat rate will suffer.
Oh well; hope I'm wrong but I don't think I will be.
I will hazard a prediction that your support team will regret the decision to use IIS. :?
I've had to deal with the never ending struggle to install various products; all of which have the same common assumption - "oh, we will use IIS". :shock:
To be blunt, IIS is a lousy implementation of a web service. Like many 'embedded' services in Windows, there is a never-ending struggle between 'gui and easy to use' and 'comprehensive and functional'.
I'm sure that after a week of struggle we will eventually get this working, as we have done with many other IIS instances. We will manage DESPITE Microsoft's intolerably obtuse and deficient documentation, and the inevitable failure of the design team to take into account (because face it you cannot; this is the trade-off one makes when one chooses some other vendor's 'platform' as something to implement on; you give up control of your own desitny) every possible configuration option someone might have running on the server they install SQL Monitor 2 on.
It is unfortunate that you chose IIS. Red Gate has buit a reputation of having easy to use, 'simple' applications at reasonable prices. This thing has definitely outgrown 'simple'. You might have managed 'modestly complex' if you had used another web server or deployed your own. Choosing IIS was a mistake.
That's just my $.02; but it is built on years of having to deal with this deficient web service in Windows.
I'm already on my own because the server we run the monitor on already has multiple sites configured on it; adding yet another is not a trivial thing to do - mainly because every vendor that uses IIS seems to make an apriori assumption that theirs will be the first web site to run on IIS on the server; also many have peculiar requirements - some want this port, some want that port etc. IIS just isn't that flexible, and heaven help the poor schmuck that through the luck of the draw gets two vendor applications that both want port 80.
Your documentation, while more comprehensive on options than most I've seen doesn't handle my situation here. It is just too bad that everyone assumes IIS is a satisfactory option for web serving; it is not.
I understand and support the design goal; I only regret your choice of technology; hope you don't come to regret it. I predict this will be your support nightmare - a high percentage of calls where you have to finally say "well, that is a Microsoft support issue, we don't handle the configuration of IIS to that level of detail" and that is where your customer sat rate will suffer.
Oh well; hope I'm wrong but I don't think I will be.
What we do in life echoes in eternity <><
Randy Volters
Randy Volters
Comments
So, disregard my Why IIS rant; apparently you all are smarter than most people who develop products requiring a web service and just assume IIS will work for them.
Randy Volters
Randy Volters
IIS does have its faults but it's something that our user base will want to use and likely already have in-house. We appreciate that not everyone will want to set up an IIS website so we provide the XSP option. This option is convenient and it should just work, but our in-house testing seems to suggest that there are slight performance benefits to using IIS over XSP.
Selecting the IIS option on our installer, doesn't do much more than copy the website files onto the filesystem. The idea is that people are then free to configure their website as they see fit. We don't make any demands on particular ports and SQL Monitor will run as a standalone website or alongside other applications under a shared port.
It would be interesting to know if you think we should be doing more with regards to IIS?
Also do you think that the two web server options on the installer are clear enough? We could look into making the choice more eye catching.
Thanks
Chris
Test Engineer
Red Gate
That said, 'xps' doesn't really say much. You might consider a terse explanation about it NOT being IIS, but a different option.
Also, I'm sure there were reasons why you went with this design, but having had it installed now for 24 hours, and struggling with it, I have to say I most definitely do not like it at all. Version 1 was 'everything' at a glance, that I needed to know.
The problem with a web browser is it pretty much forces you to always be cliking through to another page and that stinks when the purpose is to monitor.
Just my opinion, but hey, I'm a user, so I guess you'd want my feedback. :lol:
Randy Volters
I can have a VPN setup with my network administrator; connect to my office computer through that VPN, and access a windows client such as version 1, no problem.
Thinking that way would have provided your engineers with the ability to avoid the common pitfalls of web browser, click crazy, interface considerations.
Randy Volters
That's an interesting viewpoint on our switch to a web based UI. It's probably a bit late in the day for us to consider moving back to a winforms application, but I'm sure our designers will consider the usability issues you've brought up in future designs.
Thanks again
Chris
Test Engineer
Red Gate
Yes, I know; you've already put the effort in. I understand.
I hope careful thought will go into what was lost in this re-design.
Don't get me wrong, there is a place for web based design, but the simplicity and elegance that was present in the winforms client is now almost completely lost.
The idea of a monitor is to provide the most insight possible 'at a glance'.
The click to drilll on alerts removes this. For instance in Version 1 I can simply expand all 4 of my servers and view the alerts all on one page; without the need to bounce back and forth. Also the font settings and other things in version 2 chews up a lot of screen; there is just too many things to go into now; but if you'd like I'll be happy to create a list over the next few weeks and post as a 'next design phase' request here.
Cheers
Randy Volters
Regarding the choice of web interface, you're right that you can just VPN in and fire up a traditional winforms app. However, this isn't possible on mobile devices and it's a hassle to do from a new location.
Also, you can email someone the URL from Sql Monitor and they can see exactly what you're seeing without having to install any client (we encode quite a lot in the URL). The email alerts can also link directly to the alert details.
Regards,
Development
Red-Gate Software
Also there is a lot more screens due to having a lot more features. This is a lot more customizable too.
As far as a web app. Now I can access the tool from any machine any where by just opening a browser.
I for one like the new design and hope they fix the little issues and maybe add just a few more .
We'd be very interested in seeing anything like this. I can't guarantee that our designers will agree but I'll certainly point them in the direction of this thread.
Thanks
Chris
Test Engineer
Red Gate