db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael Segel" <mse...@segel.com>
Subject RE: multiple webapps many embedded vs single network
Date Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:42:30 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Chan [mailto:rchan@i-tao.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 5:52 AM
> To: derby-user@db.apache.org
> Subject: Re: multiple webapps many embedded vs single network
> 
> 
> I guess either way, derby allows me to do this easily, i just need to move
> the folder where the data is held
> 
> I was more refering to what is more efficient, if i run multiple embedded
> derby instances does it need greater memory requirements than a single
> network server instance serving all the databases?
> 
> 
[mjs] 
I understand. 
But the "efficiency" is not a main issue when you look at the larger
picture.

If your applications are database heavy, I would consider them tightly
coupled and I'd run multiple instances (One per app). You can then either
split the app from the database server, or you can split the apps and derby
to a different server as they grow.

If your applications are tightly coupled to each other, I'd run a single
instance of Derby for those applications. If Derby requires more resources,
then I'd separate Derby to a different host from your app server.

This should be your underlying concern as you design your hardware around
your application.

Today, you can buy a dual processor mother board and then each processor has
dual cores. That's a lot of horsepower, especially on a Linux Server. With
RAID built in, and using SATA drives you can build a custom box for a
relatively low price point. That's why it's a moot point. Your maintenance
cost of the application is going to be more expensive than doing a hardware
mod.


But to answer your question....

Derby wasn't designed to be a central database to multiple apps. So its not
efficient in that role. Note: This is in comparison to IDS, DB2, Oracle.
Derby is not one of those. It lacks the features that they have to act as a
centralized DB, however it does have a much smaller footprint.

Does that help?



> 
> Michael Segel-2 wrote:
> >
> > Depends on how tightly coupled the web apps are.
> >
> > Also how tightly do you want to couple the database to the app...
> >
> > Suppose at a later date you have some growth. You need to move some of
> > your apps to a new machine.
> >
> > What do you do?
> >
> >
> > Sent via BlackBerry.
> >
> > -Mike Segel
> > Principal
> > MSCC
> > 312 952 8175
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ron Chan <rchan@i-tao.com>
> > Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:23:27
> > To:derby-user@db.apache.org
> > Subject: multiple webapps many embedded vs single network
> >
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > For multiple webapps on a single tomcat instance, is it better to have
> > separate embedded databases in each webapp or have one derby network
> > server
> > serving them all?
> >
> > The webapps don't share data, they have their own database files.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Ron
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> > http://www.nabble.com/multiple-webapps-many-embedded-vs-single-network-
> tf2522906.html#a7037681
> > Sent from the Apache Derby Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> >
> 
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/multiple-webapps-many-
> embedded-vs-single-network-tf2522906.html#a7047639
> Sent from the Apache Derby Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.




Mime
View raw message