Hi Jinghai,
Inline...
Le 03/09/2018 à 10:35, Shi Jinghai a écrit :
Hi Jacques,
I assume we face the same requirement: how to become a value-added reseller of
cloud services.
Actually no, I only want to know if we want to keep the multi-tenants feature
as is now, remove it or change to another model.
In China, the reseller margin could be 15-20% from Alibaba cloud or other cloud venders,
so there's a new business model that we can offer some vertical OFBiz applications
"free" and profitable.
Kubernetes is the management tool to sell/distribute OFBiz applications.
The OFBiz applications can be a multi-tenants model: multiple customers share
one machine at a low price, this model is suitable for tiny/small customers.
The OFBiz applications can also be a multi-instances model: each customer can
scale up/down its-own application on-demand, this model is suitable for
medium/large customers.
Every customer can upgrade from multi-tenants to multi-instances, or downgrade
from multi-instances to multi-tenants.
Thank you for this topic. Please count me in if we have the same target.
We have not the same target, mine is less ambitious.
Your analysis is interesting. It also means that you not only want to keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz but also add the multi-instances model.
That makes sense but I'm not sure if the project wants to go that far.
Thanks for answering and sharing your ideas
Cheers
Jacques
Kind Regards,
Shi Jinghai
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com]
发送时间: 2018年9月2日 16:13
收件人: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
主题: Re: Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz?
Hi Jinghai,
Inline...
Le 29/08/2018 à 14:49, Shi Jinghai a écrit :
Hi Jacques,
Honestly I was shocked by this email, I'm working on deploying OFBiz in
Kubernetes, are you monitoring me?
Not at all :D
In 2010, Kubernetes was quite new and not good enough, now it's the standard on
cloud deploy management, and we can support it.
I agree Kubernetes is a good tool. How do you envision to use it with OFBiz? I
see it more as a production tool, not something we can embed like Tomcat.
Before doing that, we have to answer some common questions in cloud running
lifecycle, such as how may instances/requests can share one CPU, how to
deliver(create) an instance, how to isolate an instance, how to offline, how to
remove, how to online again and etc.
You seem to be advanced in this, have you already , even partially, answered
these questions? Are you working on a multi-tenant solution?
Personally I don't think we have to remove current multi-tenants implements,
add a SAAS implement would be OK.
The problem with the current implementation is that it has changed the OFBiz
code in some places, not always for the good.
It seems you not alone to want to keep it. Are you using it as is?
They are also people who would be glad to get rid of.
Let's see...
Jacques
Kind Regards,
Shi Jinghai
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com]
发送时间: 2018年8月29日 17:46
收件人: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
主题: Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz?
Hi,
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://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FOFBIZ-6066&data=02%7C01%7C%7C08ade5bcabda49a1f68308d610abf411%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636714728052368674&sdata=QCPlqtRHjd9a%2Fq3NIVujeqhR3o6sjjZ0sUEbFk4ojp8%3D&reserved=0
https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FOFBIZ-7900&data=02%7C01%7C%7C08ade5bcabda49a1f68308d610abf411%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636714728052368674&sdata=fxUSwHPjg%2F8Nf2aDGCODhKauIVAbmK1wb%2B67%2FPZGrRU%3D&reserved=0
https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FOFBIZ-6164&data=02%7C01%7C%7C08ade5bcabda49a1f68308d610abf411%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636714728052368674&sdata=MoH0jYAEo5IY0HA5xQOO2ZBKKMMU9RdloK1xlWNY6oY%3D&reserved=0
https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FOFBIZ-6065&data=02%7C01%7C%7C08ade5bcabda49a1f68308d610abf411%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636714728052368674&sdata=4lZb89MwttM6VGxNdT9XSeP0sEL6UBlEMOdwf%2BsU9c8%3D&reserved=0
Also this is somehow related
https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FOFBIZ-6712&data=02%7C01%7C%7C08ade5bcabda49a1f68308d610abf411%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636714728052368674&sdata=LdE%2FSQc51d%2BeN1TdZMFJgDLJT8MmFaN16VPP9H1izto%3D&reserved=0
And most importantly
https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FOFBIZ-7112&data=02%7C01%7C%7C08ade5bcabda49a1f68308d610abf411%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636714728052368674&sdata=L%2F2yFHwSU3GcdtLdGg8M%2FcjrP0%2BnPeq8ggPwFcAvMKs%3D&reserved=0
https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FOFBIZ-7754&data=02%7C01%7C%7C08ade5bcabda49a1f68308d610abf411%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636714728052368674&sdata=r%2FKZMGv73Z7R6Tr7lGZhx3AF7z2Fx39tnKsn5LsiiWs%3D&reserved=0
I recently read this article
https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fpulse%2Farchitecture-constraints-end-multi-tenancy-gregor-hohpe%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C08ade5bcabda49a1f68308d610abf411%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636714728052368674&sdata=4t%2BvaOgukTnG6vFTWHrkrcRInv%2B4CGD7V%2FxoHE0cLJU%3D&reserved=0
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://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fgroups%2F4640689%2F4640689-6180851287941201924&data=02%7C01%7C%7C08ade5bcabda49a1f68308d610abf411%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636714728052368674&sdata=ju2Mc4pm0J4fCm%2BxLmT%2BzWNlmhvyUzQjc9jWH2%2BV8dE%3D&reserved=0
https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstackoverflow.com%2Fquestions%2F41952818%2Fdoes-moqui-framework-2-0-still-support-mutli-tenency%3Frq%3D1&data=02%7C01%7C%7C08ade5bcabda49a1f68308d610abf411%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636714728052368674&sdata=Br9%2FvuhawrnxZoS1XAY%2BNFDGNzg6ilBiO%2Fx1HlR3uNg%3D&reserved=0
[1]
[1] Initially David gave me this link
https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fpulse%2Fmulti-instance-moqui-docker-david-e-jones%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C08ade5bcabda49a1f68308d610abf411%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636714728052368674&sdata=iqRUsCO1ZVGYhGqw%2FFL6gFzkPojSFvlgyOgs4jVMtDM%3D&reserved=0
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
