multiple piers on the same image with apache
Locked
multiple piers on the same image with apache
 
|
My comments inline. Thanks for your feedback and thoughts. Lukas wrote: It is certainly possible, but not recommended and not supported out of the box. You need to make sure that the persistence mechanisms between the instances do not mess with each other. SCOTT- I had set up different pier kernals for each instance. Also you probably want to keep the static files separately. I even tried running the differnt piers on different ports (eg pier 1 8080, pier 2 8081 pier 3 8082) but this bombed out due to the default application setting in the config section.. Why? What happened? SCOTT- This was different piers on different ports in the same image. eg in the apache config for domain1.com i would point to localhost:8080/pier1 and for domain2.com it would ponts to localhost:8081/pier2. Both 8081 and 8080 were on the same image but different piers I will continue to explore the issue and feedback if i can get it to run. I just wanted one image serving the piers since it would be less maintenance and less resources on myserver. On seasidehosting.st for example, many hundred Pier images run in parallel on different ports ... SCOTT- This is my current configuration. One image for one domain. Lukas Message: 3 Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 15:08:29 +0800 From: mail list <[hidden email]> Subject: [Seaside] multiple piers on the same image with apache To: [hidden email] Message-ID: <[hidden email]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Does anyone have experiene running multiple pier cms under apache on the same image using different domain names? I can successfully set up pier connected via apache. But to get the differnt domains to connect each pier in the image I ran into trouble as I had to set the pier cms to default application. I used the typical apache configuration and rewrite rules to localhost 8080. I even tried running the differnt piers on different ports (eg pier 1 8080, pier 2 8081 pier 3 8082) but this bombed out due to the default application setting in the config section.. I can supply more details if necessary. S. _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: multiple piers on the same image with apache
|
|
On 08/11/11 8:00 PM, mail list wrote:
> Lukas wrote: > You need to make sure that the persistence mechanisms between the > instances do not mess with each other. > SCOTT- I had set up different pier kernals for each instance. Having different pier kernels does not address the issue that Lukas mentioned. If you're using image persistency (i.e. image save, done in a forked process), then there is only one image saved for all kernels. Each pier kernel will be initiating (IIRC) a check of the transaction log, to determine if an image save is needed. I think there are concurrency checks and other code, to ensure that a pier kernel is saved in a consistent state; however, I'm not sure whether this logic would be sufficient when another pier kernel initiates an image save. If you're using image segment persistence, then the above issues don't apply. But, I'm pretty sure image segment persistence does not work out of the box, and the image segment code has been (will be?) removed from Pharo - so that's a bad path. I use Fuel persistence. See: http://ss3.gemstone.com/ss/pierfuel.html > SCOTT- This was different piers on different ports in the same image. eg > in the apache config for domain1.com <http://domain1.com> i would point > to localhost:8080/pier1 and for domain2.com <http://domain2.com> it > would ponts to localhost:8081/pier2. Both 8081 and 8080 were on the same > image but different piers I don't understand why you need to have separate ports (8080 and 8081), as well as separate paths (pier1 and pier2). It seems to me that choosing one or the other would be sufficient. > I will continue to explore the issue and feedback if i can get it to > run. I just wanted one image serving the piers since it would be less > maintenance and less resources on myserver. Is keeping multiple images up-to-date your maintenance concern? If you go with the Fuel persistence, then you can use the same image for all kernels, by reading in the kernel at startup. Fuel has a design goal to be fast for reading (i.e. de-serializing). The resource calculation will depend on the size and number of pier kernel(s) you're running vs. the size of the basic Pier image. Suppose the basic Pier image is 20MB, and you're running 5 kernels that are each 200MB. Then it's 5*220MB = 1100MB vs 5*200MB + 20MB = 1020MB. Yes, it's always going to be more memory, but it works now (without your having to code it). It might be better to spend the time shrinking the size of the basic Pier image. > On seasidehosting.st for example, many hundred Pier images run in > parallel on different ports ... > SCOTT- Thisis my current configuration. One image for one domain. How many images? Size of each? Are users seriously impacted by losing access to their kernel, due to problems in another kernel causing a re-start? -- Yanni _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
«
Return to Seaside General
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |