Hi Jacques / List ,
Your Inline response did not reach me on my email id and I came to know
about your response from the
archives only.
> Q: Are you using your suggestions in production?
>
A: Yes external connection pooling was eventually adopted to run an
application that were accessed
at web-scale. yes there were load balancing arrangements at various
parts of the architecture.
One of the significant architectural pattern that was employed in that
application is that it maintained
two kinds of global connection handles one for reading (to the cluster of
read-only DB slave instances)
and one for writing. For reading no transaction was begun in the http
request - response cycle. In case of
writing only DB transaction was begun and attempt was made to make the
duration of transaction as
short as possible.
Actually in their case *the* instance would have been initially always *the*
> same.
> So deploying copies was not a problem.
>
>
Yes cloning and deploying is feasible at times .
> @Jacques Le Roux <mailto:jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> there is also:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10284 for which i had worked
> on
>
> Thanks for *the* reminder, more on that later...
>
Actually I will have to redo it as my patch was based on last stable
release , i was asked to do it
for the latest tip.
regds
mallah.
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 7:40 PM Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
wrote:
> 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
> >>
>
>
