The automation of multi tenancy setup could happen through deployment scripts instead of OFBiz itself. So yes the tenants would have their own install, but I don't see why they'd have their own server farm.
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018, 4:15 AM <ja...@productive1.com> wrote: > So if you don't have multi-tenancy does that mean every tenant has their > own install of OFbiz, their own install of Postgres SQL, and their own > server farm? > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz? > From: Taher Alkhateeb <slidingfilame...@gmail.com> > Date: Tue, September 04, 2018 9:12 am > To: user@ofbiz.apache.org > > The question is: is it worth keeping it? To answer this question, > perhaps we need to perhaps look at the pros and cons > > pros of keeping multi-tenancy: > - less memory consumption. > - less storage consumption. > - single deployment (less effort) > > cons of keeping multi-tenancy: > - Inflexibility: all tenants are stuck with the same code base. > - risk: if one tenant goes down, all tenants go down. There is less > redundancy and recovery. > - lock-in: splitting out tenants to a new separate instance is hard > and time consuming. > - code complexity: The multi-tenancy feature in OFBiz is making nearly > every critical artifact in the system complex. It is hard wired in > tomcat, components, data loaders and many other places. I stopped > counting the "if" conditions to handle the multi-tenant corner cases > all over the code base. > - alternatives less complex: the advent of new technologies like > docker and containerization makes the need for multi-tenancy less > desired. Also, storage and memory is getting cheaper all the time. So > the pros listed above are getting less valuable over time. > > So for all the above, I find myself leaning more towards removing > multi-tenancy from the code base. > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 5:49 PM Mike <mz4whee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > My opinion is to just completely ditch the multi tenant code since it > seems > > to be more trouble than it's worth. Anyone serious about designing a > > system to support a similar concept would do it their own way anyway, > most > > likely using completely separate DBs. Face it, using a common DB and > share > > between separate companies is a dangerous concept, let alone the scaling > > issues involved. > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 1:33 AM Jacques Le Roux < > jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Note: this conversation started on the dev ML: > > > https://markmail.org/message/hb2kt5nkodhwnkgw > > > > > > The multi-tenants feature in OFBiz only allows a dozens or maybe even > few > > > hundreds tenants, after it begin to be a lot of DBs! > > > I faced that with a startup which wanted to handle thousands, if not > > > millions (actually they failed), of tenants, obviously OFBiz can't do > that. > > > > > > I don't break any secret to say that I was working with David (and > Andrew) > > > on a project in 2010 when David had to quickly answer to the client's > > > demand who wanted to have tenants. David brilliantly and quickly > > > delivered, but it was only a start. > > > > > > After many improvements, this feature still have some issues > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6066 > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7900 > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6164 > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6065 > > > > > > Also this is somehow related > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6712 > > > > > > And most importantly > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7112 > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7754 > > > > > > I recently read this article > > > > > > > > > > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/architecture-constraints-end-multi-tenancy-gregor-hohpe/ > > > > > > and, after my experiences with multi-tenant as is in OFBiz, it made me > > > wonder if we should not think about how it's done now in OFBiz in 2018 > with > > > the > > > clouds being everywhere! > > > > > > Before sending this email, I quickly exchanged with David about how > Moqui > > > handles that now. And we are on the same page, see > > > > > > https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4640689/4640689-6180851287941201924 > > > > > > > > > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41952818/does-moqui-framework-2-0-still-support-mutli-tenency?rq=1 > > > [1] > > > > > > [1] Initially David gave me this link > > > > > > > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/multi-instance-moqui-docker-david-e-jones/ > > > > > > but it seems LinkedIn has lost it, as said in the stackoverflow > comment. > > > > > > So IMO why not deprecating the multi-tenants as is now and rather push > a > > > multi-instances way? > > > > > > Opinions? > > > > > > Jacques > > > > > > >
