> We are having major reliability problems with ColdFusion 7. > These problems have been discussed here before with no real > solutions. For example: JRUN will go completely haywire and > take all the CPU and Virtual Memory on the system about once > every 2 days, sometimes multiple times a day. We haven't been > able to figure out why.
Unfortunately, these kinds of problems are more common than I'd like. They can usually be diagnosed, but the diagnostic process is often long and painful. You won't find "real solutions" on message boards usually, because there's so much variance between how these problems are fixed in each case. At best, you'll find information on how to diagnose these problems. > For this and other reasons (such as the occasional upgrade), > we have decided that a 2 server cluster would be a good idea > so at least we could get some redundancy. We don't need load > balancing really, just failover but it looks like you usually > get both no matter what you do. Yes, it's hard to get one without the other. To get effective failover, you need the functionality that load balancing provides - the ability to accept requests from a client, then send those requests to one server or another. If you really want nothing but failover, you could conceivably just set up two servers, then use scripts to bind and unbind IP addresses from one server to another when one server fails. However, that would be a bit inefficient and time-consuming, and probably less than reliable. > Unfortunately, after calling Macromedia I have found that the > only way to do this is to buy 2 licenses of ColdFusion Enterprise. > So basically this will entail approximately a $10k+ investment in > just Coldfusion licenses (not to mention hardware etc), which works > out to about 8 times our original investment for the existing license, > just to get some redundancy! > > So the formula is: > > 1 server solution = $695-$1200 (depending on upgrade or new) > 1 redundant server solution (2 servers with same content) = $10,000+ > > Does this make sense to everyone here? Yes, this makes perfect sense! Saying "just to get some redundancy" as if it was no big deal to plug another server in is a bit silly. Redundancy is expensive. Improving uptime is expensive. It's exponentially more expensive to get from, say, 95% to five-nines uptime (99.999%) than it is to get to 95% uptime in the first place. However, there are certainly cheaper solutions. Macromedia would love to sell you more (and more expensive) CFMX Enterprise licenses, and if you require session-capable failover they're worth every penny, except for the annoyance that you can't deal with CFC instances in memory using this approach. You could, however, use all sorts of cheaper solutions if you're willing to work around their deficiencies. You could use any hardware load balancer with a bunch of CFMX Standard servers, and either avoid using the Session scope or set "sticky sessions" at your load balancer. Windows Load Balancing (NLB) is another option, although I can't recall a good way to have NLB detect CF's failure. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:216875 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
