Two CF Server and IIS on the same boxes clustered behind a hardware load-balancer (non distr). Then IIS on a seperate box running CF on that in distributed mode against the cluster above. That is as I understand it.
Original Message ---
> The cost of extra boxes (they're clus
> The cost of extra boxes (they're clustered), server licences
> and ongoing maintenance costs.
I still don't get it. How many boxes do they have? Are they running CF on
all of these boxes already anyway?
If I have two boxes, I could configure them many different ways:
- CF and IIS installed lo
The cost of extra boxes (they're clustered), server licences and ongoing maintenance costs.
Kind Regards - Mike Brunt
Original Message ---
> I agree with you Dave. From what I understand they see this
> as a resource saving issue. We are trying to dissuade them
> from this
> I agree with you Dave. From what I understand they see this
> as a resource saving issue. We are trying to dissuade them
> from this and I am trying to find objective reasons for that.
What resources are they trying to save? I just don't get it.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www
I agree with you Dave. From what I understand they see this as a resource saving issue. We are trying to dissuade them from this and I am trying to find objective reasons for that.
Kind Regards - Mike Brunt
Original Message ---
> I need some opinions/points on this. We have a
> I need some opinions/points on this. We have a client
> running both distributed and non-distributed mode on the
> same CF50 Server, Windows 2k against IIS. Do you think
> this is a bad idea?
Why are they doing this? It sounds bad to me, in the sense that I don't see
any point to it.
Dave Wa
I need some opinions/points on this. We have a client running both distributed and non-distributed mode on the same CF50 Server, Windows 2k against IIS. Do you think this is a bad idea?
Kind Regards - Mike Brunt
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Se
7 matches
Mail list logo
