Thanks Jacques.  It sounds like it is good practice to have separate
"unique.instanceId" for each VM, but having separate pools are optional.
 If I kill a VM, and there were outstanding jobs, will another instance
take over?

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
[email protected]> wrote:

> From: "Mike" <[email protected]>
>
>  Playing around with running multiple instances of OFBiz in it's own VM, in
>> a cloud environment, to the same DB.
>>
>> I ran across this on the OpenTaps docs:
>>
>> Service engine job pool:
>> Modify the file framework/service/config/**serviceengine.xml for each of
>> your
>> instances and edit the thread-pool's send-to-pool and run-from-pool to be
>> different for each instance. For example:
>>
>> <thread-pool send-to-pool="opentaps1"> . . . <run-from-pool
>> name="opentaps1"/></thread-**pool>
>>
>> What is the purpose of this?
>>
>
> You don't need this as long as you don't need to isolate some jobs and
> want them running only on one of the machines (for performance or other
> reasons)
>
>
>  Is this so that jobs originated on each
>> instance are tracked separately on the DB?
>>
>
> Yes, you can say that
>
>
>  Is there anything else that
>> needs to be tweaked config-wise so the multiple instances don't collide?
>>
>
> You should not get multiple instances colliding. If you want only one
> instance of a job to run at a time I'd recommned to set
> semaphore="fail" on the related service
>
> You may also consider unique.instanceId in general.properties, look at
> this thread 
> http://markmail.org/message/**xhc6nfbzsd5ezscg<http://markmail.org/message/xhc6nfbzsd5ezscg>
>
> And if you want to get confused a bit you might look at
> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/OFBIZ-4602?**
> focusedCommentId=13199868&**page=com.atlassian.jira.**
> plugin.system.issuetabpanels:**comment-tabpanel#comment-**13199868<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4602?focusedCommentId=13199868&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13199868>
>
> Jacques
>
>
>

Reply via email to