I've just run against an annoying limitation of the buildout.
After a few attempts I was able to implement a setup configuration extending
the default buildout.cfg of Plone 4 with
- multiple mount-points added to the default zope instance
- a Zeo server handling a second ZODB with 2 mount-points
- a number of Zeo clients.
following the documentation of plone.recipe.zope2instance,
collective.recipe.filestorage and plone.recipe.zeoserver.
Then I tried to extend further the buildout by adding
- a second Zeo server handling its own ZODB and mount-points.
But I realized that plone.recipe.unifiedinstaller doesn't allow to have more
than one zeoserver in the same buildout. It seems that what the buildout
generates is all ok, but the plonectl script, due to the limitations in the
ctl.py module.
This is an expected behaviour (but no warning is issued); however, it is a
pity in my view. Somebody could object against writing too large/complex
buildouts, but I find very convenient being able to share among different
projects most of the Zope/Plone code and of the buildout settings (eggs,
zcml slugs, aso). Should I open a ticket in dev.plone.org ?
Giovanni
----- Original Message -----
From: "Giovanni Toffoli" <toff...@uni.net>
To: <setup@lists.plone.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 1:25 PM
Subject: [Setup] Multiple Plone sites in development and deployment
(...)
I recap my development environment:
- no Zeo, no proxies but Apache
- 1 ZODB in file Data.fs
- N mount-points: sub-folders db1, db2, .. dbn (files db1.fs, db2.fs, ..
dbn.fs)
- N Plone sites at the physical addresses /db1/site1, /db2/site2, ..
/dbn/siten.
THE NEW QUESTIONS
For deployment, till now I always made the assumption of having a unique
ZODB (with a few mount-points) and a unique ZeoServer. But possibly this
isn't a reasonable choice.
My new questions, roused by a couple of replies, are:
1. better having a different ZODB and a different ZeoServer per Plone site
?
2. in this case, the CPU and RAM overheads are acceptable ?
MY PROVISIONAL CONCLUSIONS
If the answers to both questions above are YES, in the deployment I could
keep the modularity of the development environment as follows:
- M sites; they could be subsets of sites coming from similar but distinct
development environments, on both Linux and Windows
- 1 ZODB per site, say in file sitej_db.fs (to be created by the buildout)
- 1 mount point per site, in ZODB sitej_db, sub-folder dbj (file dbj.fs)
- Plone object filej, in sub-folder dbj
- 1 ZeoServer and 1 or more Zeo clients, or no Zeo at all, per site.
In this case, the buildout file would be bigger but probably I would be
able to write it by myself. In each case, I would have a unique buildout
and would share among the sites both Zope and Plone directories/modules.
Giovanni
_______________________________________________
Setup mailing list
Setup@lists.plone.org
https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/setup
