Eric, thanks for responding.
By competition are you referring to Blue Dragon or something else?
Thanks,
Chris
Eric Knipp wrote:
Do keep in mind that JRun is a pretty crap J2EE server. Its very
limited compared to the competition.
On 7/12/07, *Joe Kelly* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Chris,
I can't say the coding would be any different. But there are
certainly
more capabilities with Enterprise. If you client wants to foot the
bill, go for it!
Product Edition comparision
http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/productinfo/product_editions/#s2
<http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/productinfo/product_editions/#s2>
Thanks
Joe Kelly
On 7/12/07, Christopher Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> 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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> >> http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
<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/ <http://www.instantspot.com/>
> >> www.teksystems.com/ <http://www.teksystems.com/>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Reply to DFWCFUG: [email protected]
<mailto:[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/
<http://www.instantspot.com/>
> > www.teksystems.com/ <http://www.teksystems.com/>
> >
>
> --
> http://www.cjordan.us
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Reply to DFWCFUG:
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
<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/ <http://www.instantspot.com/>
> www.teksystems.com/ <http://www.teksystems.com/>
>
_______________________________________________
Reply to DFWCFUG:
[email protected] <mailto:[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/ <http://www.instantspot.com/>
www.teksystems.com/ <http://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/
