It would be better to create a JIRA issue for this requirement gathering.

Pierre,

There are many articles on separate db-separate schema vs shared db-separate 
schema vs
 shared db-shared schema approach. Here is an extract from 
http://cloudcomputing.sys-con.com/node/1610582


Attribute



Separate Database



Separate Schema



Separate Rows





Tenants are large enterprise customers who could store large amounts of data in 
TB or 100s of GB



Good



Fair



Poor





Tenants are individual consumers  with low or moderate storage of data like a  
social networking site



Poor



Fair



Good





Rapid provisioning is the key, risk of losing business exists  if the
 response is not quick, customers select the service on the fly



Fair



Fair



Good





Customers can opt out of  (Cancel ) service at a faster rate and  space 
reclamation is not a concern



Good



Good



Fair





Customer can opt out of (Cancel) service at a faster rate and space reclamation 
is a concern



Good



Good



Poor





The business logic of your SaaS application is highly customized with respect 
to the Tenant



Good



Good



Poor





Application is prone to database locks



Good



Fair



Poor





Security and Legal Requirements require data separation, even if the 
application controls it



Good



Fair



Poor





Performance tuning is a concern and reports performance should be based on the 
volume of data



Good



Fair



Poor





Administration and maintenance of Schema and  database code is a concern



Poor



Poor



Good





Scalability is a concern



Good



Fair



Poor





Frequent Changes to the Application Possible



Poor



Poor



Good





Data is mission critical and Point In Time Recovery is needed in case of a crash



Good



Fair



Poor

Looking at above VS chart, it is clear that separate database is going to fit 
the requirements of ofbiz.


Regards:

Ejaz Ahmed





> Subject: Re: OFBiz Multi-tenancy
> To: [email protected]
> From: [email protected]
> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:31:06 +0000
> 
> Just my 0.02 here:
> 
> My understanding is still that the delegator handling might not be robust 
> enough on OOTB OFBiz. When it comes to backend access every too often I have 
> issues to see proper data or even logging in. Respective JIRA is open.
> 
> Multiple DB needs to be the solution. Such is also leveraging a 
> depend-nothing concept better than shared DB. Sharding multiple OFBiz 
> instances to manage the traffic will be also easier, not speaking about 
> upgradding ti dedicated instances etc.
> 
> Re postgres I feel tenant-level backups into XML using OFBiz on-board tools 
> might anyways be more efficient. The subset of entities that are populated 
> into OFBiz by Tenant use are pretty clear.
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> Carsten
> 
> Gesendet von unterwegs mit BlackBerry® Webmail.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pierre Smits <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:57:54 
> To: <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: OFBiz Multi-tenancy
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Thank you for submitting links to documents related to the subject.
> 
> Of course, for each the criteria might vary and weigh differently, and the
> options available in current feature set of OFBiz are limited.
> 
> But in whole, the cost of operations are key. These cost of operations not
> only include the hardware and software cost, but also the effort of
> maintaining the environment. While setting up a new tenant is easy, and
> maintaining the happy flow (uptime and backup), the crucial factors in this
> are the performance of the persistence engine and recovery cost in case of
> unexpected data loss.
> As many (on the internet) seem to be agreeing on the recovery cost in the
> case of a shared database-shared schema approach can be expected to be high
> due to the intricacies of the beast as opposed to a 'separate
> database-separate schema' setup.
> 
> Yes, multiple databases might lead to a performance overhead and higher
> maintenance cost, but a side-by-side comparison of the various aspects of
> each approach (separate db-separate schema vs shared db-separate schema vs
> shared db-shared schema) is something that would surely help in assessing
> what would be the best approach in various scenarios.
> 
> If that would be available, then a sound roadmap could be devised for this
> subject.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Pierre Smits
> 
> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com

                                          

Reply via email to