geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: RES: "Virtual Hosting"
Date Fri, 08 Aug 2003 19:09:52 GMT
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Alex Blewitt wrote:
> I think that a per-App VM is likely to be better, so that you can cycle 
> apps individually from one another without breakages.

	It depends on your environment.  If you have many small apps, 
which together have some moderate load, one VM can save you a lot of RAM 
and overhead (sure RAM is cheap, but 512 per app across 100 apps is more 
than you can put in a Intel box).  If you have fewer bigger apps, several 
VMs would likely be better.  Can we agree that both approaches have merit?

> But I also like the idea of having several servers so that you can 
> create different app-groups. There may be some desirable security 
> aspects of having several server configurations.
> 
> Not really sure why installing the product twice is necessary; surely 
> it would be better having the same codebase? The other big problem to 
> be avoided (if possible) is JBoss' approach, where the server 
> configurations didn't just contain config files; they also contained 
> executable apps. It caused me several problems upgrading from minor 
> builds (x.1.1 -> x.1.2) because I had to copy the new libs into each of 
> the server configurations.

	Yes, all that is true.  As far as installing twice, I only meant 
to say there's an easy workaround for wanting different apps in different 
VMs; there's not as easy a workaround for the alternative.  But there's no 
reason we can make it our intention to support both.

Aaron


Mime
View raw message