cloud

We're moving our build from Team Build (Team Foundation Service) to a local build machine using Jenkins CI for build. However, we still want to use the Cloud for Source Control. So now we need to access the cloud TFS to get the latest build. Jenkins has an TFS Plugin, but that was made for TFS 2008. Now I have the problem that I'm not able to access the cloud TFS with TF.exe from VS2012. I found an article here that showed me the difference between TFS 2008 and 2010 (I need to add /tfs/DefaultCollection to the server URL), but that didn't work with the cloud TFS. Here's the error: TF31002:

My question has two parts I know they are basic ones but not able to clear the thoughts so posting this. We are planning to build a new app on windows azure. after reading some of the articles on cloud I have build a sample application on cloud that perform basic operation like CRUD. So I want to know that what are all fundamental difference you all felt while working on azure app. I have built the application using MVC as framework. I have not felt much of difference in terms of writing code in normal web app using MVC and a cloud app using MVC. What are the to-dos while building an cloud app

Scenario I have these two Cloud Functions that I want to use in my application. They check for the online status of the user and I want to set a boolean key "isOnline" for each user to YES if the user is online and to NO if they are not. var moment = require("moment"); Parse.Cloud.define("registerActivity", function(request, response) { var user = request.user; user.set("lastActive", new Date()); user.save().then(function (user) { response.success(); }, function (error) { console.log(error); response.error(error); }); }); Parse.Cloud.define("getOnlineUsers", function(request, response) { var

I'm looking for a very simple and free cloud store for small packets of data. Basically, I want to write a Greasemonkey script that a user can run on multiple machines with a shared data set. The data is primarily just a single number, eight byte per user should be enough. It all boils down to the following requirements: simple to develop for (it's a fun project for a few hours, I don't want to invest twice as much in the sync) store eight bytes per user (or maybe a bit more, but it's really tiny) ideally, users don't have to sign up (they just get a random key they can enter on all their

By default, when Docker container is started the user inside is sudo. I want: Lock sudo user in container by default. Use LDAP authentication in container instead of the default (when the users are provided along with the image, or created by sudo user when container is running). For that, I ran a container and configured it to communicate with LDAP server. Next, I created an image from this container. Now, I can run a container using this image (but only as a sudo user) and perform su LDAP_USER to change the current user to the LDAP user. However, when I try to run container with -u LDAP_USER

I would like a way to store code snippets in a very straightforward way (to store and to retrieve). I code sometimes at home sometimes at work or various other workspaces, so I'd like a repository that's in the cloud. I would also like there to be an option for some kind of OS integration (via shortcut key perhaps; don't want to have to navigate to a webpage (snipplr) or an application (evernote) to retrieve the code). Ideally something that combines the best of Snipplr and Ditto . There's a similar question here , but I'm specifically concerned with a method that will work in OSX or Windows

I'm utilizing Azure for hosting a cloud service, which I recently modified to be scalable across multiple instances, including a session caching worker role. My question is, why would I be seeing extreme load (upwards of 90%) on one instance, but not on other instances (15-20% across all other instances)? Should I be worried? Before I set up load balancing and when my single instance hit upwards of 95% load, it would slow to a crawl --- becoming unusable. Is there any way to ensure that I don't have any users experiencing this because they're somehow round-robin'd onto the overloaded instance?