[cfaussie] Re: CF Cluster on one machine!?
No. Each instance has x amount of RAM supplied. Unless Adobe have changed this with CF8 that still applies. Just creating a new instance will consume RAM whether or not you even utilise it. -- Peter Tilbrook ColdGen Internet Solutions President, ACT and Region ColdFusion Users Group PO Box 2247 Queanbeyan, NSW, 2620 AUSTRALIA http://www.coldgen.com/ http://www.actcfug.com/ Tel: +61-2-6284-2727 Mob: +61-0432-897-437 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN Messenger Live: Desktop General --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[cfaussie] Re: CF Cluster on one machine!?
If you are running multiple instances on one machine, the JVM memory
is shared over those instances (at least they are in JRUN)
So this means if you are on a Windows Machine, and you give the max
memory to the JVM (about 1GB I think) it is used by every instance in
the "cluster" so this could mean that if you have one instance go
nuts, and eat up lots of memory, less memory is avalible to the other
instacnes on the machine.
The way round this would be to assign a JRun instance it's own JVM
(tech note here:
http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=tn_18206)
I can't say I've actually done this, as I use JRun on my laptop for
developement so Clustering isn't such a bit deal!
HTH
On Jun 5, 12:12 pm, "Taco Fleur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like this. Just the excuse I was looking for, let's wait and see if there
> are any major negatives ;-)
>
> On 6/5/07, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > We run 2 machines via a load balancer with sticky sessions, then have
> > 3 instances on each machine. the default instance runs testing and
> > staging sites, and then we have a cluster that runs 2 instances for
> > the production application.
>
> > It runs great. The best advantage is that if one instance gets stuck
> > with some long running thread the other instance can start taking more
> > load and that happens alot faster than a load balancer can recognise a
> > problem, this means users get a better experience.
>
> > My view on this is that its worth doing, you are effectively adding
> > more servers with out the cost of more rackspace.
>
> > Its cheap to add some more RAM to hold it all together.
>
> > On 6/5/07, Haikal Saadh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Remember that as you add instances, resources available to each
> > > individual cluster drops.
>
> > > Now, rather than having stage and live on one machine, wouldn't it make
> > > more sense to have two machines?
>
> > > * One for the live.
> > > * Second one for stage, with maybe an additional instance clustered
> > > with live for failover?
>
> > > Then you get all the _real_ benefits of having a cluster.
>
> > > Although, I still cringe at the thought of stage and live code running
> > > on the same box.
>
> > > Taco Fleur wrote:
> > > > I am hoping to get some input on the following.
>
> > > > I have one instance of CF running and one is dormant (STAGING) to
> > > > upload new code to and test it out before moving to LIVE.
> > > > We are starting out with one machine for CF and will tag on more as
> > > > the need arises, my question is, would there be any benefit of putting
> > > > a cluster on one machine? The only benefit I could see if the fact
> > > > that if one crashes the other one on the same machine takes over. But
> > > > its highly likely that the problem on the first instance will
> > > > replicate to the second instance in the cluster.. So I'm not sure
> > > > anymore... I'm hoping someone can give me a reason to do it, so I can
> > > > finally setup my first cluster (yeah)...
>
> > > > --
> > > >http://www.clickfind.com.au
> > > > The new Australian search engine for businesses, products and services
>
> > --
> > Duncan I Loxton
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
> *** { . } { . } http://www.clickfind.com.au
> The new Australian search engine for businesses, products and services- Hide
> quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"cfaussie" group.
To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[cfaussie] Re: CF Cluster on one machine!?
I like this. Just the excuse I was looking for, let's wait and see if there
are any major negatives ;-)
On 6/5/07, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> We run 2 machines via a load balancer with sticky sessions, then have
> 3 instances on each machine. the default instance runs testing and
> staging sites, and then we have a cluster that runs 2 instances for
> the production application.
>
> It runs great. The best advantage is that if one instance gets stuck
> with some long running thread the other instance can start taking more
> load and that happens alot faster than a load balancer can recognise a
> problem, this means users get a better experience.
>
> My view on this is that its worth doing, you are effectively adding
> more servers with out the cost of more rackspace.
>
> Its cheap to add some more RAM to hold it all together.
>
> On 6/5/07, Haikal Saadh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Remember that as you add instances, resources available to each
> > individual cluster drops.
> >
> > Now, rather than having stage and live on one machine, wouldn't it make
> > more sense to have two machines?
> >
> > * One for the live.
> > * Second one for stage, with maybe an additional instance clustered
> > with live for failover?
> >
> > Then you get all the _real_ benefits of having a cluster.
> >
> > Although, I still cringe at the thought of stage and live code running
> > on the same box.
> >
> > Taco Fleur wrote:
> > > I am hoping to get some input on the following.
> > >
> > > I have one instance of CF running and one is dormant (STAGING) to
> > > upload new code to and test it out before moving to LIVE.
> > > We are starting out with one machine for CF and will tag on more as
> > > the need arises, my question is, would there be any benefit of putting
> > > a cluster on one machine? The only benefit I could see if the fact
> > > that if one crashes the other one on the same machine takes over. But
> > > its highly likely that the problem on the first instance will
> > > replicate to the second instance in the cluster.. So I'm not sure
> > > anymore... I'm hoping someone can give me a reason to do it, so I can
> > > finally setup my first cluster (yeah)...
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://www.clickfind.com.au
> > > The new Australian search engine for businesses, products and services
> > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Duncan I Loxton
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >
>
--
*** { . } { . }
http://www.clickfind.com.au
The new Australian search engine for businesses, products and services
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"cfaussie" group.
To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[cfaussie] Re: CF Cluster on one machine!?
Yup, it would make more sense to have another machine for the cluster, but
as specified, we don't have that luxury at the moment. And I'm basically
looking for an excuse (where there isn't one yet) to install a cluster on
one machine (I'm like a boy with a new toy).
I prefer my staging on the exact same machine as LIVE so it mimics the *
exact* live environment. Since its running on a different instance it should
not affect the live instance if it crashes.
On 6/5/07, Haikal Saadh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Remember that as you add instances, resources available to each
> individual cluster drops.
>
> Now, rather than having stage and live on one machine, wouldn't it make
> more sense to have two machines?
>
>* One for the live.
>* Second one for stage, with maybe an additional instance clustered
> with live for failover?
>
> Then you get all the _real_ benefits of having a cluster.
>
> Although, I still cringe at the thought of stage and live code running
> on the same box.
>
> Taco Fleur wrote:
> > I am hoping to get some input on the following.
> >
> > I have one instance of CF running and one is dormant (STAGING) to
> > upload new code to and test it out before moving to LIVE.
> > We are starting out with one machine for CF and will tag on more as
> > the need arises, my question is, would there be any benefit of putting
> > a cluster on one machine? The only benefit I could see if the fact
> > that if one crashes the other one on the same machine takes over. But
> > its highly likely that the problem on the first instance will
> > replicate to the second instance in the cluster.. So I'm not sure
> > anymore... I'm hoping someone can give me a reason to do it, so I can
> > finally setup my first cluster (yeah)...
> >
> > --
> > http://www.clickfind.com.au
> > The new Australian search engine for businesses, products and services
> >
> > >
>
>
> >
>
--
*** { . } { . }
http://www.clickfind.com.au
The new Australian search engine for businesses, products and services
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"cfaussie" group.
To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[cfaussie] Re: CF Cluster on one machine!?
We run 2 machines via a load balancer with sticky sessions, then have 3 instances on each machine. the default instance runs testing and staging sites, and then we have a cluster that runs 2 instances for the production application. It runs great. The best advantage is that if one instance gets stuck with some long running thread the other instance can start taking more load and that happens alot faster than a load balancer can recognise a problem, this means users get a better experience. My view on this is that its worth doing, you are effectively adding more servers with out the cost of more rackspace. Its cheap to add some more RAM to hold it all together. On 6/5/07, Haikal Saadh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Remember that as you add instances, resources available to each > individual cluster drops. > > Now, rather than having stage and live on one machine, wouldn't it make > more sense to have two machines? > > * One for the live. > * Second one for stage, with maybe an additional instance clustered > with live for failover? > > Then you get all the _real_ benefits of having a cluster. > > Although, I still cringe at the thought of stage and live code running > on the same box. > > Taco Fleur wrote: > > I am hoping to get some input on the following. > > > > I have one instance of CF running and one is dormant (STAGING) to > > upload new code to and test it out before moving to LIVE. > > We are starting out with one machine for CF and will tag on more as > > the need arises, my question is, would there be any benefit of putting > > a cluster on one machine? The only benefit I could see if the fact > > that if one crashes the other one on the same machine takes over. But > > its highly likely that the problem on the first instance will > > replicate to the second instance in the cluster.. So I'm not sure > > anymore... I'm hoping someone can give me a reason to do it, so I can > > finally setup my first cluster (yeah)... > > > > -- > > http://www.clickfind.com.au > > The new Australian search engine for businesses, products and services > > > > > > > > > > -- Duncan I Loxton [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[cfaussie] Re: CF Cluster on one machine!?
Remember that as you add instances, resources available to each individual cluster drops. Now, rather than having stage and live on one machine, wouldn't it make more sense to have two machines? * One for the live. * Second one for stage, with maybe an additional instance clustered with live for failover? Then you get all the _real_ benefits of having a cluster. Although, I still cringe at the thought of stage and live code running on the same box. Taco Fleur wrote: > I am hoping to get some input on the following. > > I have one instance of CF running and one is dormant (STAGING) to > upload new code to and test it out before moving to LIVE. > We are starting out with one machine for CF and will tag on more as > the need arises, my question is, would there be any benefit of putting > a cluster on one machine? The only benefit I could see if the fact > that if one crashes the other one on the same machine takes over. But > its highly likely that the problem on the first instance will > replicate to the second instance in the cluster.. So I'm not sure > anymore... I'm hoping someone can give me a reason to do it, so I can > finally setup my first cluster (yeah)... > > -- > http://www.clickfind.com.au > The new Australian search engine for businesses, products and services > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
