2 or 3. There are some sites that I'd like to run outside examples and the 'production' instances. For example the teatime application will receive some loving care soon and need some restarts. I'd like to do that without affecting the 'production' apps that drive our community (also without having to wait for 2 minute while jira, confluence et al start up).
I do see that we are still limited in the amount of memory we can claim for each vm. I'd do the following partitioning: - jira/confluence/teamcity/maven repo : 768MB - wicket examples: 512MB - teatime/other apps: 256MB - teamcity build agent: 768MB Total: 2304MB This leaves 768MB for OS level stuff, such as file sytem cache, databases, etc. Sounds reasonable? Martijn On 5/18/08, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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/ > > >> > > > -- Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3
