Very interesting input Carlos. Thank you for sharing. Are you a current user of OFBiz multi-tenancy? Do you find it adequate and reliable in its current form?
Regards, Taher Alkhateeb On Fri, Sep 7, 2018, 10:12 PM Carlos Cruz <car...@nbtbizcapital.com> wrote: > These are my personal opinions and no way shape or form a criticism of > anyone especially the developers. > > this premise is not correct. I think we are mixing apples and oranges. > Docker itself relies on some sort of multi-tenant (broadly speaking and > being generic) architecture. A Docker container cannot run independently, > Docker containers need some sort of management system (ie Kubernetes or > Swarm) therefor right there you have a "multi-tenant" asset to manage the > Docker containers. Another example in a very broad way aren't Tomcat and > Apache HTTP, MySQL, MS SQL, etc. "multi-tenant" systems? > > If you're running a server at the back of your shop, running one instance > of OFBiz running your one ecommerce site, yes multi-tenant is perhaps an > overkill. On the other hand if a company is running OFBiz for its own > multi-company needs or hosting needs of many clients, the costs of running > many instances of OFBiz will very quickly become prohibitive. The idea the > risks associated with a "multi-tenant" environment is any higher than > running a Container environment is also incorrect, whether you're running, > multi-tenants, VMs or Docker containers you still need to have some sort > of redundancy except it becomes more complex and expensive. > > If the goal of OFBiz is to serve the needs of QuickBooks (figurative) > sized clients, yes it should forgo the burden of its "multi-tenant" > architecture, on the other hand if it wants to be a true ERP system, then > there are many companies that require a "multi-tenant" architecture. > Abandoning OFBiz's "multi-tenant" architecture would go against the trend > taken by most major ERP solutions like SAP and MS Dynamics. If anyone > wants to run OFBiz as a SaaS solution no way around it, economically > speaking you NEED to have "multi-tenancy". For an ERP system a Docker > implementation in my opinion is a compromise, and one of the reasons I > don't prefer Moqui. > > I personally think OFBiz's mutli-tenancy does not go far enough, for > example I think the Login into OFBiz should be more aware of its tenants, > and not require a Tenant ID. > > Again very, very, very broadly speaking Google, Amazon, Microsoft (i.e. > Azure) Facebook, IBM (i.e Watson cognitive analytics) and many others are > all able to track the last time you said hello to your special friend and > recommend you step into the closest flower shop by running some sort of > monolithic natured multi-tenant software. > > > Carlos > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Mandeltort [mailto:p...@marcospec.com] > Sent: Friday, September 7, 2018 1:27 PM > To: user@ofbiz.apache.org > Subject: Re: Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz? > > I agree we should pursue making containerization a first-class citizen in > the OFBiz world. It will hasten adoption, reduce development startup > headaches, and leverage the multi-billion dollar investments that companies > like Docker and Amazon have been making in the space. > > Caveat: I’m not fully knowledgeable of the detailed implementation of the > multi-tenant functionality, but it appears it was developed before > containerization technology hit it stride. > > Modern web architecture design is container-oriented- spin up and down > containers (which could be configured as tenants) as needed. > > With postgres database hosting platforms like Amazon Aurora enabling > instant spin-up of any database size, it would make better architecture > sense to publish an official OFBiz docker container architecture which > would implement the multi-tenant functionality and push down the different > tenant configs via configuration files/docker images. Then the entire > deployment of a multi-tenant system can be managed at the > dockerfile/composer level in source code control. > > Moving in this direction makes ofbiz directly compatible with modern > hosting platforms and makes it super easy to deploy and manage, and also > leverages the large devops community that’s already built around this use > case for monitoring, scaling, backup, protection, and all the other > day-to-day production headaches that come with managing scaled web > application. > > The multi-tenant approach prolongs the monolithic nature of OFbiz which > eventually slows down and cripples development as changes and upgrades > become exponentially more difficult. > > —P > > > > On Sep 2, 2018, at 03:33, Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Note: this conversation started on the dev ML: > https://markmail.org/message/hb2kt5nkodhwnkgw > > > > 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://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6066 > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7900 > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6164 > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6065 > > > > Also this is somehow related > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6712 > > > > And most importantly > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7112 > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7754 > > > > I recently read this article > > > > > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/architecture-constraints-end-multi-tenancy-gregor-hohpe/ > > > > 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://www.linkedin.com/groups/4640689/4640689-6180851287941201924 > > > > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41952818/does-moqui-framework-2-0-still-support-mutli-tenency?rq=1 > [1] > > > > [1] Initially David gave me this link > > > > > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/multi-instance-moqui-docker-david-e-jones/ > > > > 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 > > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > https://www.avg.com > >
