geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Russell E Glaue <rgl...@cait.org>
Subject Re: Geronimo directory structure & permissions
Date Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:48:29 GMT
With Rex's latest commit for GERONIMO-5987, and testing with
geronimo-tomcat7-javaee6-3.0-20110923.091022-350-bin, I am able to run multiple
instances of the Geronino javaee6 bundle now.

To make it work, you have to follow my specific startup procedure I gave in
GERONIMO-5987 which refers to an example I put into the Wiki page
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxDOC30/Running+multiple+Geronimo+instances
.

We're still having a minor issue with conflicting ActiveMQ lock files (actually
the ActiveMQ working directory) if you do not startup the Geronimo instances in
a particular way.


Jeff and Forrest
I am able to start up multiple instances of the javaee6 bundle now, but I have
not tested extended operation of them. Do you two know of any other issues
preventing a successful operation of multiple instances within a single runtime
OS as I outlined in the Wiki page example I referenced above?


-RG


On 09/22/2011 11:03 AM, Russell E Glaue wrote:
> It should be noted that as long as JIRA GERONIMO-5987 goes unresolved, even if
> you install several copies of Geronimo into different file structure locations
> (e.g. /opt/g1 and /opt/g2), the javaee6 bundle does not allow multiple Geronimo
> servers to run within the same runtime OS.
> 
> GERONIMO-5987 is the open issue for the ActiveMQ port configuration. Currently
> ActiveMQ listens on port 61616 and you cannot change that in any configuration.
> Thus prohibiting anymore than one Geronimo javaee6 server from running on a
> single runtime OS.
> 
> I just updated JIRA GERONIMO-5987 to reflect the current status of the issue,
> which has made a small step forward by listing the ActiveMQ service and actual
> bind port (opposed to the configured bind port) in the Geronimo startup output.
> 
> -RG
> 
> 
> On 09/22/2011 04:29 AM, chi runhua wrote:
>> The way by sharing the repository or certain folders is not enabled in 3.0 yet. 
>> To run multiple instances on one machine,  the only way is to copy the server
>> folder to another place on the disk, and then start the server after changing
>> the offPortset value in config-substitutions.properties file.
>>
>> Jeff C
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Forrest Xia <forrestxm@gmail.com
>> <mailto:forrestxm@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     3.0 does not have the feature like the doc for multiple instances support.
>>     The doc needs update.
>>
>>     Forrest
>>
>>
>>     On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Russell E Glaue <rglaue@cait.org
>>     <mailto:rglaue@cait.org>> wrote:
>>
>>         AFAIK, we still have a desire to support multiple instances per Geronimo
>>         base
>>         install.
>>
>>         https://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC30/running-multiple-geronimo-instances.html
>>
>>         We have been working towards a common configuration location in 3.0
>>         trunk for
>>         all parts of Geronimo.
>>
>>         I am expecting to test and use multiple instances with the 3.0 release.
>>
>>         -RG
>>
>>
>>         On 09/20/2011 10:08 PM, Rex Wang wrote:
>>         > If we want to continue maintain such complexity in 3.0? Hard drive is
>>         pretty
>>         > cheap nowadays.
>>         >
>>         > And I think currently the part that looks a little bit wasting space
>>         is karaf
>>         > "copy" the artifacts from repository to cache when start..
>>         >
>>         > -Rex
>>         >
>>         > 2011/9/21 Forrest Xia <forrestxm@gmail.com
>>         <mailto:forrestxm@gmail.com> <mailto:forrestxm@gmail.com
>>         <mailto:forrestxm@gmail.com>>>
>>         >
>>         >     This idea is like the multiple instances feature we had in 2.1
>>         branch, but
>>         >     not supported in trunk now.
>>         >
>>         >     Geronimo 2.1.x support copying "var" folder to add more instances
>>         with a
>>         >     same installation, but G trunk code does not support that feature
now.
>>         >
>>         >     Do we have a user scenario to mandate that feature for 3.x?
>>         >
>>         >     Regards,
>>         >     Forrest
>>         >
>>         >
>>         >     On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Jarek Gawor <jgawor@gmail.com
>>         <mailto:jgawor@gmail.com>
>>         >     <mailto:jgawor@gmail.com <mailto:jgawor@gmail.com>>>
wrote:
>>         >
>>         >         Hi,
>>         >
>>         >         In Geronimo binary install which directories do we consider
>>         read-only
>>         >         vs. write/read? The idea is that the read-only directories
>>         could be
>>         >         shared among multiple installations to save some space and reduce
>>         >         maintenance.
>>         >
>>         >         Here's what I identified so far:
>>         >
>>         >         read-only:
>>         >          - bin
>>         >          - jsr88
>>         >          - schema
>>         >          - lib
>>         >
>>         >         read/write:
>>         >          - deploy
>>         >          - hotbundles
>>         >          - etc
>>         >          - var
>>         >
>>         >         The repository/ directory is a little weird because parts of
>>         it could
>>         >         be considered read-only and some write. I wonder if maybe we
>>         should
>>         >         have separate repository directories one for Geronimo bundles
and
>>         >         another one for applications.
>>         >
>>         >         Thanks,
>>         >         Jarek
>>         >
>>         >
>>         >
>>         >
>>         >
>>         > --
>>         > Lei Wang (Rex)
>>         > rwonly AT apache.org <http://apache.org> <http://apache.org>
>>
>>
>>

Mime
View raw message