Why so many, in separate files, you ask...
1. why not? (what's the cost/risk of multiple Data.fs files and mount
2. makes it easy to move a single client site between instances and
servers (we don't yet know how load is going to mount up, and whether
we'll need to set up a new server at, say, 30 sites, or 100, or ...)
3. site import/export doesn't work as well, and it seems that
import/export of "large" Zope objects is deprecated...
4. I'm told that, occasionally, Data.fs become corrupted. We have some
protection if that happens, since it should (I'd think) affect only one
client, not many.
I'm very interested in answers to #1 (things that will make me regret
our current strategy)
Chris Withers wrote:
Christoph Berendes wrote:
I am writing to tap the list's experience with running a single zope
instance with a large number (30, 500, 2000?) of mount points.
Why do you want so many ;-)
We're hosting a number of client sites, and for each client, e.g.
clientX, we have a mount point:
Why not just keep them all in the same .fs file?
Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -