Interesting point. Each application server goes about 60MB, but each application server has a seperate java heap (which is configurable, but the application must fit in it).
But even additional Linux virtual machines would have this overhead, since it would have the WAS base plus an application plus the java heap. On Tuesday 02 September 2003 08:25 am, you wrote: > On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 08:22, Rich Smrcina wrote: > > We've gone both ways and there are plusses and minuses. Keeping each > > production application in it's own WAS application server (in a single > > Linux instance) has the benefit of isolating applications such that a > > coding error or runaway query in one application only crashes the > > application server that it runs in. The java heap size for each > > application can also be more granularly fine tuned. > > > > On the other hand, using additional application servers has the drawback > > of a larger memory footprint. > > On the third hand, given that, with typical WAS applications, the > overhead of Linux (about 40MB) is small compared to the WebSphere > overhead (what, about 200MB, usually?), breaking them into separate > virtual machines isn't necessarily a silly choice either. > > Adam -- Rich Smrcina Sr. Systems Engineer Sytek Services, A Division of DSG Milwaukee, WI rsmrcina at wi.rr.com rsmrcina at dsgroup.com Catch the WAVV! Stay for Requirements and the Free for All! Update your S/390 skills in 4 days for a very reasonable price. WAVV 2004 in Chattanooga, TN April 30-May 4, 2004 For details see http://www.wavv.org
