Regards, Sebastiaan
Johan Compagner wrote:
vm's? how many? vm's have 1 problem that they all need an excact amount of memory that they will consume. And the server has now 3G but that doesnt mean that we can run many vm's on it that all are running tomcat.. Because for that every vm must be configured to have a bit memory, atleast between 512M en 1G. I would just say if we want multiply instances then every thing that is pretty static can be in one (teatime/repo/jira/teamcity/doc) and all the examples could go into another. I dont see more gain in having it split up even more. On 5/18/08, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Well, it would make adding VMs set up to run a "site" very easy. They would all look the same (tomcat/jetty, JDK, svn, etc.). So, you'd know exactly where to go to make changes. I use Apache virtual hosts at home, too, but I don't have that many domains set up (I have 2 I think). Setting up a new instance of Tomcat/Jetty for each one of these sites and maintaining the proxy forwards in Apache can be a PITA. That's just my $0.02. The sites shouldn't need that much memory anyway (JIRA/TeamCity might require more of course). On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Timo Rantalaiho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On Sun, 18 May 2008, James Carman wrote:How about setting them up as VMs?This might require partitioning the memory statically for each virtual server. I think that name-based virtual hosts by Apache on the front would probably be the most cost- effective solution. Best wishes, Timo -- Timo Rantalaiho Reaktor Innovations Oy <URL: http://www.ri.fi/ >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
