Joe, thanks for responding.
Joe Kelly wrote:
Chris,
My employer had intentions of going through the same scenario with 3
different boxes for each stage, except that we are using RedHat and
Apache with Oracle. Adobe Professional Services (Universal Mind)
recommended that we eliminate the middle tier and run Apache and CF on
the same box, which we do now. I would imagine the same would hold
true for IIS and CF. It made a lot of sense because Apache/IIS really
don't have a lot of overhead.
The IT manager at my client feels like it's a security risk to have
anything but the webserver in the DMZ, and that's his *only* concern.
I'm not even certain it's a valid concern.
As far as clustering, I would recommend (so does Universal Mind!) that
you use a hardware load balancer over CF clustering. The overhead is
about 25% to 50% more for each server to maintain the sticky sessions.
Enterprise will give you the ability to have several instances of CF.
This way you could run your Development, Testing and Production
environments all on the same box - in separate instances. So when
your hokey dev code crashes the server, it will only be the
development instance that goes down.
Licensing - if you have 2 boxes with CF, you will need 2 licenses, so
clustering later will require a license for each box running CF. You
may not have any real justification for Enterprise right now, other
than it's really cool and powerful with more features and will require
less change/adjustment when clustering comes later.
Well, it's actually my client who wants to get Enterprise, but they
still want to know what the benefits are. So do you think that 300 to
500 users is enough to justify clustering?
Another idea to throw in is VMWare. You can "mirror" all your CF
instances across all your clustered CF servers and they will be
identical. Plus you have a backup for disaster recovery.
That would be cool. We're using VMWare for email servers at some of our
other client's, and that's pretty slick stuff.
Also what about coding in Enterprise? Any differences, or changes in
technique necessary to take advantage of clustering or anything else
nifty that Enterprise offers?
Thanks,
Chris
Good Luck!
Joe Kelly
On 7/11/07, Christopher Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi folks! :o)
I need some advice.
I just got out of a meeting with my client and one thing that came
up is
whether or not to move to CF Enterprise Edition. The IT manager out here
wants us to move to a three tiered architecture where we have our web
server
in the DMZ, and both our application server and database server
separate.
Currently we run IIS on the same box as CF (which is running as a
service),
and we access tables in two different types of databases (and old
version of
DB2 and some very old FoxPro tables... I know: not technically a
database).
I understand that with the enterprise edition CF comes the ability
to do
clustering, which we may want to do in the future, but I don't know a
whole
heck of a lot beyond that, and in fact have never really used the
enterprise
edition before.
My client is under the impression that we cannot do this sort of
three-tier
separation using the standard edition of CF, and to be honest, I
don't know
that that's *not* true.
So the very general question is what benefits do we get from
switching to
the enterprise edition?
More specifically though:
Is my client right? Can we only do this sort of three-tiered
architecture
using the enterprise edition of CF?
We're anticipating that we will have between 300 and 500 users (give or
take) when all is said and done. That compares to *maybe* a hundred
users
right now. Is that sufficient to require clustering?
If we do end up getting enterprise and wanting to cluster servers
together,
is that difficult to set up? And...
... would I have to make any changes to the way that I code to take
advantage of clustering?
What are the advantages/disadvantages of running CF as a service versus
running it as an instance on a J2EE application server? (am I saying
that
right?) I'm anxious to hear what everyone has to say about all this.
Thanks,
Chris
--
http://www.cjordan.us
_______________________________________________
Reply to DFWCFUG:
[email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
List Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
DFWCFUG Sponsors:
www.instantspot.com/
www.teksystems.com/
_______________________________________________
Reply to DFWCFUG: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
List Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
DFWCFUG Sponsors: www.instantspot.com/
www.teksystems.com/
--
http://www.cjordan.us
_______________________________________________
Reply to DFWCFUG:
[email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
List Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
DFWCFUG Sponsors:
www.instantspot.com/
www.teksystems.com/
