We are evaluating Umbraco 6.x and the minimum requirements we have are it should run on Azure Cloud Services with at least 3 instances and also run our own MVC4 controllers/views (of course, at a different URL route on the same domain).
Now we installed Umbraco via NuGet (btw, the nuget dependency is still on an older mvc dll?) and tried it but we noticed some really fundamental design issues on Umbraco's side (either that or we're missing something).
Umbraco seems to want to modify the local disk storage even when a SQL Azure database has been setup? This completely baffles us because if we have 3 instances, they will quickly go out of sync. Also, all data will be lost on redeployment or when the role gets recycled.
After you setup the SQL database connection, Umbraco breaks ("The service is unavailable")if you're still running it within Azure (or Azure emulator). This doesn't happen if you directly run Umbraco itself directly in IIS/IS Express. Note that even when it's "broken" in Azure, Umbraco is still alive at the \umbraco\ URL in Azure/Azure emulator. It's just enters some weird state and we feel this is due to the broken file persistance model (#1 reason)
How can we redirect Umbraco's IO into Blob storage (or SQL) ? I'm guessing there must be some switch/module/setting to enable this but can't find it.
If that doesn't exist, then what is the "normal operational cycle" when using Umbraco with Azure Cloud Services. We really don't want to keep modifying the CMS locally in VS2012 (new blog post or new page etc) and redeploying it to azure for changes - that would pretty much defeat the purpose of having a CMS itself.
Umbraco 6.x on Azure ? (multi instance webroles)
We are evaluating Umbraco 6.x and the minimum requirements we have are it should run on Azure Cloud Services with at least 3 instances and also run our own MVC4 controllers/views (of course, at a different URL route on the same domain).
Now we installed Umbraco via NuGet (btw, the nuget dependency is still on an older mvc dll?) and tried it but we noticed some really fundamental design issues on Umbraco's side (either that or we're missing something).
We decided to go with Orchard CMS. It's free and right out of the box it supports
is working on a reply...