Honestly, probably not. There are several HA Postgres hosts nowadays that are very cost-effective. Amazon RDS is one, for example, and just a few clicks and boom you have a replicated fail-over Postgres instance available to you for practically nothing. Set up good backup scheme and you have a bulletproof database infrastructure.
OFBiz has lots of areas that need attention (back-end user experience….), but scaling and cloud-hosting databases is a problem that’s being solved already by many other folks, so no sense in re-inventing the wheel here. Bandwidth costs will continue to fall across the entire world. The cost of supporting custom/odd-ball features in OFBiz that the whole community doesn’t need will continue to rise as the software ages and increases technical debt. —P > On Jan 17, 2017, at 12:47 PM, Bahaa Alamood > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > Thanks for the advice :), but this is not the point here. The point is > having such a solution will provide you with the clustered environment that > will make your important business data always stored in more than one machine > (I think you know how important that is) We can forget about the remote > office scenario and think cloud or vps type situation where you need this > redundancy, you will see that this scenario is very valuable. Another way > to think about this when this remote office is located in parts of the world > where a Mbps cost over 300 USD a month then this option is a valuable option, > is it not? > > > On 1/17/2017 1:10 PM, Paul Mandeltort wrote: >> How expensive would it be to just upgrade the office’s internet >> connectivity? With my business hat on, that will almost always be MUCH >> cheaper than investing in a corner case of development that the rest of the >> community isn’t using anyway. >> >> Take a look at the new generation of microwave data links available - you >> can now securely link sites at 1gbps+ point-to-point over 5-10 miles with >> 99.999% uptime with modest hardware investments (which against are always >> cheaper than trying to re-architect OFBiz). >> >> —P >> >>> On Jan 17, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Bahaa Alamood >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Jaques, >>> >>> thanks for the tip, I have seen this post before. I tried it today and it >>> seems to do the trick for the sequences. I think I do not need the rest of >>> the setup in the post because I want to use the brd which sync the database. >>> >>> I have a questions regarding the sync. So i have a scenario as an example >>> where one user on one server changes a record and I have another user on >>> another server changed the same record. would the system be able to handle >>> this when they sync? will I see both changes as history? >>> >>> >>> On 1/17/2017 4:29 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>> The now removed POS component used a solution for similar cases. This >>>> solution still exists and is reliable on a LAN ("less" on Internet) >>>> >>>> You can find the documentation at >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Sync+Setup+Notes+and+Example >>>> >>>> Disclaimer: it's not very easy to understand and use... >>>> >>>> HTH >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 17/01/2017 à 00:01, Bahaa Alamood a écrit : >>>>> Hello All, >>>>> >>>>> We have a situation that we need to have more than 2 servers of ofbiz >>>>> running, server A, B, and C. The scenario is like this >>>>> >>>>> 1. Server A is the main server and it is online all the time with its own >>>>> database. some people do connect to that and make changes to the data >>>>> (create, delete, modify) >>>>> >>>>> 2. Server B is a server in one office (own database) and they do not have >>>>> a reliable internet connection so it goes offline some times while the >>>>> users in this office continue to use their local ofbiz >>>>> >>>>> 3. Server C is the same as server B with its own database as well >>>>> >>>>> I have been looking at the bdr from 2nd Quadrant >>>>> https://2ndquadrant.com/en/resources/bdr/ to do the data replicationamong >>>>> the servers. I realize that this could create conflicts in the primary >>>>> keys of many things in the system. So I looked at SequenceUtil.java and I >>>>> can see if I change the stagger in getNextSeqId from 1 to 2 in one of >>>>> the systems I can avoid this conflict in two of them, but what about the >>>>> third one? also in the above scenario what else I need to look out for >>>>> other than the sequences that might create conflicts? >>>>> >
