On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Alex Blewitt wrote:
> I think that a per-App VM is likely to be better, so that you can cycle
> apps individually from one another without breakages.
It depends on your environment. If you have many small apps,
which together have some moderate load, one VM can save you a lot of RAM
and overhead (sure RAM is cheap, but 512 per app across 100 apps is more
than you can put in a Intel box). If you have fewer bigger apps, several
VMs would likely be better. Can we agree that both approaches have merit?
> But I also like the idea of having several servers so that you can
> create different app-groups. There may be some desirable security
> aspects of having several server configurations.
>
> Not really sure why installing the product twice is necessary; surely
> it would be better having the same codebase? The other big problem to
> be avoided (if possible) is JBoss' approach, where the server
> configurations didn't just contain config files; they also contained
> executable apps. It caused me several problems upgrading from minor
> builds (x.1.1 -> x.1.2) because I had to copy the new libs into each of
> the server configurations.
Yes, all that is true. As far as installing twice, I only meant
to say there's an easy workaround for wanting different apps in different
VMs; there's not as easy a workaround for the alternative. But there's no
reason we can make it our intention to support both.
Aaron
