Disqus - Latest Comments for jvp

Re: Docker Performance on M1

jvp — Fri, 12 Nov 2021 14:39:36 -0000

When moving to using docker on Apple M1 / arm64, does this mean all docker images that were previously built on an Intel / amd64 system must now be rebuilt to run on M1?

Does this also mean if an image that is built from other legacy images (i.e. older versions of images from docker hub, other authors, etc.) those lower level images must also be rebuilt to use/run them on M1?

And once built on M1, will those images run on amd64?

Re: Docker Performance on M1

jvp — Wed, 10 Nov 2021 19:13:23 -0000

Ah - ok - I get it, so UTM being just like Fusion or Parallels or VirtualBox - for some reason I thought by your table it was the bare metal OS replacement and my brain was recently in the middle of working on ESXi on our MacMini as that scenario.

So generally speaking the idea is to switch to a Ubuntu Server VM and run the docker engine and docker cli inside the VM... Are you still using a macOS coding environment? I also recently stumbled on VSCode which I've started to fall in love with and I've seen some articles about connecting it to a "remote" environment to code so I assume that means I can code in VSCode on the macOS side while the runtime environment is in the UbuntuVM.

I wonder if I did the same with Parallels vs UTM, how would it compare between the 2 and/or would it still be a boost in performance vs natively on macOS with Docker Desktop? Maybe a comparison with Parallels Ubuntu VM is another addition to your chart in this article :-)

I continue to pull my hair out with file system performance and mounting issues on the macOS native side, even with my beast of a machine! - I keep thinking they will fix it in the next release... but it's been years now.

I will setup a Ubuntu Server environment to see how the docker development environment on a VM while working from my macOS works on my current Intel based MBP while I patiently wait for my M1 Max.

Re: Docker Performance on M1

jvp — Mon, 08 Nov 2021 21:03:00 -0000

Hi - great write up, very timely and nearly exactly what I was looking for in terms of analyzing a similar usage of hardware. I currently have a 2019 MBP w/64GB as my primary and "everything" computer (workstation/development environment, all regular MacOS computer needs), I run Docker Desktop for application development and I also use Parallels for Windows application development from within the MacOS environment. I have ordered its replacement, a 2021 MBP M1 Max w/64GB (expected delivery in December 2021) and have been a bit nervous things might not work at least as they do on the 2019 MBP.

This article is the first I've heard of UTM but if I understand your setup for your best test (green in your chart) is using UTM as a replacement for the MacOS host operating system (like we do with an older MacMini with ESXi v6).. is that correct?

If so, does that mean you also (can?) have MacOS installed as a VM for your MacOS usage of the device in addition to the Ubuntu Server VM? I would need to be able to continue to use the same hardware as my everything where MacOS is the main usage environment (even if it isn't the lowest layer).

Are you able to just use that MacOS VM on top of the UTM host just as if it were the host OS for everything? And when in the MacOS VM, I assume you can just ssh in a terminal into the Ubuntu Server VM and have a shared file system between the two VMs so code editing and file navigation all can just appear as if it is still happening on the MacOS environment even though it is running on the Ubuntu Docker Desktop?

I am very interested to learn more about this to maximize the performance for docker but not have to give up my MacOS primary work environment.

Thanks!

Re: Auto-reconnect for ActiveRecord connections

jvp — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 16:39:40 -0000

I think the change is


          if defined? transaction_manager
            in_transaction = transaction_manager.current_transaction.open?
          else
            in_transaction = open_transactions > 0
          end

Re: Auto-reconnect for ActiveRecord connections

jvp — Wed, 18 Oct 2017 21:27:52 -0000

Trying this in a Rails3.2 project, I get an error `undefined local variable or method 'transaction_manager'` I assume this is because transaction_manager was introduced in Rails4.2.1 - do you know if there is a way to refactor using a Rails3.2 equivalent way to determine if `in_transaction` should be true?

Re: OneDrive for Business vs OneDrive – Know the difference

jvp — Sat, 05 Nov 2016 11:45:42 -0000

I am a little confused between the message in this article here and this other article http://en.share-gate.com/bl.... In that other article it states more than once that ODFB lacks Sharepoint features such as creating metadata and that it is really for the "Me" files and NOT for "We" files. However in this article it indicates that with ODFB does include collaboration features such as "Real time co-authoring on Office documents" and Sharepoint features such as the ones in the "Advanced administration for granular control" bullet point in the article (which includes metadata/lists, etc.) It even has a sub item "Basically, every single feature SharePoint offers". So, which one is it? Does ODFB have the ability to share, co-author and control access to documents and folders or not? And if so, why is Sharepoint Team Site considered providing "a place for multiple people to work together as a group/team and includes document management" but not ODFB? Please help clarify for me.

If ODFB does have these capabilities, then the ability to collaborate / co-author and have administrative control of documents and folders seems like "We" vs "Me" to me. No?

Is "Groups for Office365" available as a feature within regular / standard "Office365 For Business" if you don't have the Sharepoint option specifically added and only use ODFB?. Office365 For Business includes ODFB whereas you need Office365 For Business Essentials or Premium for the additional Sharepoint app (aside from whatever Sharepoint backend is already there in ODFB.

Thanks for helping clear this up.

Re: Dan Manges's Blog - Rails Optimistic Locking isn't a Silver Bullet

jvp — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:51:10 -0000

I am trying to figure out how to best handling record locking and was reading your article. Good article and discussion.

Perhaps I am oversimplifying this... but I am attempting to create a solution by which a record's editability is controlled by a check box on the form which changes the form fields from disabled (in client) to enabled (disabled = false) via an ajax request to lock it.

Basically I have the same view for edit as show. Once the data is loaded all fields are disabled. If the user clicks the checkbox to edit, then an ajax call back to the server will check for lock_version and set a field that indicates the record is locked and if the record is locked, the form will never be editable, instead a message displayed to the user before hand, instead of after submitting changes as in the existing lock methods.

Now, it is easy enough to handle setting this locked state back to unlocked after an update, but I am still struggling with how to handle a stale lock when the first lock never unlocks. I am just brainstorming this right now.

Is there a way to query if an alternate session is still live (could be timeout based) and merge what you suggest here in your article with what I am trying to do?

My thinking is that If I can just disabled the ability to edit from the beginning until an unlocked state occurs, It would be better than trying to decide between the other lock methods? No?

Thanks for any thoughts or suggestions.

John