Hi Vince, yes, I have considered virtualisation but I have concluded that I don't really need virtualisation :)
I don't want to shoot flies with a gun for elephants ( a humble interpretation attempt :) I would have preferred virtualisation if I need - OS process level isolation - kernel level isolation - file system level isolation - if I ran software which does not support multiple instances because of shared resources or something else. Currently all I need is network level isolation. I want to give VPN access to the customers so they can see *ONLY* their own OFBiz instance. So if I start an OFBiz instance bound only ( for example ) to 192.168.1.1 then I will be able to create a VPN network 192.168.1.1/24. The other way is to create a complex system of forwarded ports which is a real pain in the a** to maintain. -- deyan On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 12:19 -0500, Vince Clark wrote: > Deyan > > I'm curious to know why you are running multiple instances in this way. Have > you considered virtualisation? > > > Vince Clark > [email protected] > (303) 493-6723 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Deyan Tsvetanov" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, June 1, 2009 9:58:41 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain > Subject: Re: Multiple OFBiz instances running on a single machine > > Hi again, > > I'm sorry for delaying the thread, I was pretty busy the last few > days ... > > It happens :) > > So back to the discussion: > As I mentioned *ALL* the containers can be configured which network > interfaces to bind to: ajp ( 8009 ), http ( 8080 ), https ( 8443 ), iiop > ( 2000 ). The only container that does not support this type of > configuration is the NamingContainer > ( OFBIZ_HOME/framework/base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml ) . > > Why is it a pain for me ? Because I am running each OFBiz instance into > a different VLAN. Why ? Because I have configured VPN access for each > VLAN. And that's not the only reason. I would really like to know that > 1099 is RMI, 8009 is AJP. > > The only thing that breaks my VLAN schema is the NamingContainer, which > binds to *:1099 ( all the available interfaces ). > > I provided a patch which fixes that injustice and brings everything to > order. > > If you don't like it and think it's useless - it's ok with me - I'll > continue using the patched version. And I'll re-apply the patch every > time I update the sources from the SVN and get a conflict. For 1 patch > it's manageable. For 10 - it's still manageable. For 100 - it's > impossible. I'll just have to switch to some other product. > > But that is actually opposing the open source theory, which says > "Everybody can contribute by writing code, sharing experience, business > knowhow, ideas and etc, etc, etc". > > Now if you give me a reason ( or a list of reasons ) why the feature > I've proposed should not be accepted - I'll be glad with it and I'll > forget about it forever and ever. > > I agree that it's a minor priority patch for you guys. > But the priority is slightly bigger for me. > > What I have done so far was: > > 1) Identify the problem. > 2) Propose a solution. > 3) Initiate a discussion > 4) Hope that the solution is accepted or a better one is proposed. > > Currently we're on step 3) as my solution was not accepted and a better > one was not proposed. > > So - I'm eager to move to step 4). The "change the 1099 port" workaround > is definitely not a better solution :) > > Cheers, > Deyan > > > On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 08:12 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote: > > The way I chose was to use ajp and change those ports. This makes > > updating from the SVN easier. > > http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/FAQ+-+Tips+-+Tricks+-+Cookbook+-+HowTo#FAQ-Tips-Tricks-Cookbook-HowTo-HTTPD > > > > > > Ashish Vijaywargiya sent the following on 5/25/2009 5:56 AM: > > > Below is my post dated May 21, 2009 on the user mailing list on the User > > > Mailing list. > > > I guess you have missed my reply. > > > Please read the details, give it a try and if got stuckup somewhere then > > > come back to discuss the things. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Yes this can be easily done in OFBiz. > > > > > > Open ofbiz-containers.xml file. > > > (framework/base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml) > > > Change the value of port in all the property by name "port". For ex. you > > > can change http port from 8080 to 28080 > > > > > > Then open url.property file. (framework/webapp/config/url.properties) > > > Keep the value of http & https port same as you set in the > > > ofbiz-containers.xml file. > > > > > > So now we have two instance of OFBiz server on the same machine. > > > > > > -- One is running on 8080 & another one is running on 28080 port. > > > > > > For accessing the same database you should keep the settings of database > > > same in entityengine.xml file. > > > This is all from my side. > > > > > > Now its your turn to give it a try and if got stuck up somewhere in b/w > > > then shoot an email on mailing list. > > > Thanks ! > > > > > >
