Hi Dieter. I guess the bottom line is to evaluate configurations and
weigh them against your resources, needs, risks, etc and then make a
decision. The great thing is that Zope is flexible and as a result
there are interesting options to consider. Your feedback has been
helpful. Many thanks.
Regards,
David
On Friday, September 23, 2005, at 02:03 PM, Dieter Maurer wrote:
David Pratt wrote at 2005-9-22 17:50 -0300:
...
I am interested in what you might recommend when you are dealing with
a
number of virtual sites of the smaller zodb scale since this is really
the issue I am attempting to solve. I definitely like the features
ZEO
has to offer as far as asynchronous maintenance, etc.
I have no experience with this.
My experience is with huge ZODB storages -- containing everything, even
large binary objects. It copes quite well.
How to proceed with lots of small virtual sites heavily depends
on your ressources. If I had plenty of resources, I would
each give its own Zope instance -- to make then as independent
from one another as possible. If my resource were very tight,
I would use a single Zope instance and a single storage
to spare resources as much as possible.
--
Dieter
_______________________________________________
Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
