Hi Dieter! This is really nice to know. Zope is really flexible and so awesome as a result. If I wanted to configure with multiple zodb for a single ZEO server you say there may be a possible downside in requiring a single ZEO server per database instance further down the road. Is this something that is currently planned so I don't implement something that will not be supported later? It could be also be a bit of a problem since each ZEO server requires its own RAM. RAM is a valuable commodity.

My goal is to ensure that customers I work with are working exclusively in their own zodb. It seems preferable for these zodb's to be associated with a single ZEO server (instead of each zodb mounted in a single zope instance) to make maintenance tasks smooth and handled asynchronously. Would you agree? I realize that if resources were unlimited, it would be best for a single ZEO server to use a single zodb and have one or more ZEO clients. My circumstance is that the virtual sites are relatively small, they make heavy use of the filesystem blobs and relational database storages to deliberately minimize the size and demand on zodb. I can't see the zodb per virtual site growing to any more than 50MB in size for example.

I guess I see the possibility of single ZEO for a number of virtual hosted sites as a plus (since it means also that I could add additional ZEO clients to provide more threads for serving the group of virtual sites). I guess I am just trying to determine the sanity of doing it. I see also with this possible arrangement I could move a zodb out into its own ZEO server and ZEO client situation if it was needed. Many thanks.


On Tuesday, September 20, 2005, at 02:23 PM, Dieter Maurer wrote:

You can do this -- without ZEO, with a single ZEO (and multiple storages)
and with many ZEOs.
Zope maillist  -  Zope@zope.org
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )

Reply via email to