redeploying is not always going that good. But maybe it is better now with the newer tomcat and jvm and now tomcat has a lot more memory so i guess it doesnt complain as soon anymore
but having 2 tomcats is fine, more is not something i would do johan On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hmm, what's wrong with redeploy without restarting tomcat. :-) > > And you can still think of partitioning it in 2 VM's if one is going to > have to be updated many times, but the rest is relatively stable... > > A huge number of VM's is just not very resource friendly... :-( > > Regards, > Sebastiaan > > > Martijn Dashorst wrote: > >> Because I don't want to shut down jira, confluence, teamcity and so >> forth when deploying the examples. >> >> Martijn >> >> On 5/18/08, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Why not go with 1 VM and just use Tomcat's virtual hosting. Using aliases >>> in apache you only need 1 virtual host (because it has to do the same >>> thing >>> for every host anyway, and that is forward to tomcat). >>> >>> 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/ > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >> >>
