You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wicket.apache.org by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> on 2008/05/18 14:01:40 UTC
Restructure container(s) at wicketstuff.org server?
All,
is it a good idea to restructure the server a bit?
I'd like to have:
- builds.wicketstuff.org
- repo.wicketstuff.org
- snapshots.wicketstuff.org
- issues.wicketstuff.org
- wiki.wicketstuff.org
- examples.wicketstuff.org
I'd like to be able to have multiple containers running on the box, so
we can restart for example the wicket examples without having to
restart the builds/issues/confluence instance.
We could set repo.wicketstuff.org up so that it syncs with the central
repository.
So I'd like the following containers running:
- builds/jira/confluence/maven repo
- examples
- mini containers for small production type of apps, such as wicket
bot, teatime, etc.
I don't have root access, and I'm not that experienced in setting such
a thing up, but I am willing to learn.
Martijn
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3
Re: Restructure container(s) at wicketstuff.org server?
Posted by Maurice Marrink <ma...@gmail.com>.
+1
Also willing to help but also no root access or xp :)
Maurice
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Martijn Dashorst
<ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> is it a good idea to restructure the server a bit?
>
> I'd like to have:
> - builds.wicketstuff.org
> - repo.wicketstuff.org
> - snapshots.wicketstuff.org
> - issues.wicketstuff.org
> - wiki.wicketstuff.org
> - examples.wicketstuff.org
>
> I'd like to be able to have multiple containers running on the box, so
> we can restart for example the wicket examples without having to
> restart the builds/issues/confluence instance.
>
> We could set repo.wicketstuff.org up so that it syncs with the central
> repository.
>
> So I'd like the following containers running:
> - builds/jira/confluence/maven repo
> - examples
> - mini containers for small production type of apps, such as wicket
> bot, teatime, etc.
>
> I don't have root access, and I'm not that experienced in setting such
> a thing up, but I am willing to learn.
>
> Martijn
>
> --
> Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released
> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3
>
Re: Restructure container(s) at wicketstuff.org server?
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
redeploying is not always going that good.
But maybe it is better now with the newer tomcat and jvm
and now tomcat has a lot more memory so i guess it doesnt complain as soon
anymore
but having 2 tomcats is fine, more is not something i would do
johan
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk <se...@sebster.com>
wrote:
> Hmm, what's wrong with redeploy without restarting tomcat. :-)
>
> And you can still think of partitioning it in 2 VM's if one is going to
> have to be updated many times, but the rest is relatively stable...
>
> A huge number of VM's is just not very resource friendly... :-(
>
> Regards,
> Sebastiaan
>
>
> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>
>> Because I don't want to shut down jira, confluence, teamcity and so
>> forth when deploying the examples.
>>
>> Martijn
>>
>> On 5/18/08, Sebastiaan van Erk <se...@sebster.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why not go with 1 VM and just use Tomcat's virtual hosting. Using aliases
>>> in apache you only need 1 virtual host (because it has to do the same
>>> thing
>>> for every host anyway, and that is forward to tomcat).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Sebastiaan
>>>
>>>
>>> Johan Compagner wrote:
>>>
>>> vm's? how many?
>>>>
>>>> vm's have 1 problem that they all need an excact amount of memory that
>>>> they will consume. And the server has now 3G but that doesnt mean that
>>>> we can run many vm's on it that all are running tomcat.. Because for
>>>> that every vm must be configured to have a bit memory, atleast between
>>>> 512M en 1G.
>>>>
>>>> I would just say if we want multiply instances then every thing that
>>>> is pretty static can be in one
>>>>
>>> (teatime/repo/jira/teamcity/doc) and
>>>
>>>> all the examples could go into another. I dont see more gain in having
>>>> it split up even more.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/18/08, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, it would make adding VMs set up to run a "site" very easy. They
>>>>> would all look the same (tomcat/jetty, JDK, svn, etc.). So, you'd
>>>>> know exactly where to go to make changes. I use Apache virtual hosts
>>>>> at home, too, but I don't have that many domains set up (I have 2 I
>>>>> think). Setting up a new instance of Tomcat/Jetty for each one of
>>>>> these sites and maintaining the proxy forwards in Apache can be a
>>>>> PITA. That's just my $0.02. The sites shouldn't need that much
>>>>> memory anyway (JIRA/TeamCity might require more of course).
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Timo Rantalaiho <
>>>>> Timo.Rantalaiho@ri.fi>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 18 May 2008, James Carman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about setting them up as VMs?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This might require partitioning the memory statically for
>>>>>> each virtual server. I think that name-based virtual hosts
>>>>>> by Apache on the front would probably be the most cost-
>>>>>> effective solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Timo Rantalaiho
>>>>>> Reaktor Innovations Oy <URL: http://www.ri.fi/ >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Re: Restructure container(s) at wicketstuff.org server?
Posted by Sebastiaan van Erk <se...@sebster.com>.
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> On 5/18/08, Sebastiaan van Erk <se...@sebster.com> wrote:
>> Hmm, what's wrong with redeploy without restarting tomcat. :-)
>
> This just doesn't work.
> 1. permgen space errors
Shouldn't that be garbage collected as well?
> 2. reboot of server takes >2minutes
> 3. VM size > 2G is also very resource unfriendly for the GC
> 4. fast redeploy is very welcome
I don't know, I'm running with tomcat 6.0.16 for a while now and do hot
redeploys all the time. I can't remember when I last had to restart
tomcat...
I guess it's a bit of a tradeoff and should be tested, but if it works
I'd prefer redeploy to tomcat restarts...
Especially small apps like teatime shouldn't be a problem to just
redeploy without restart shouldn't they?
Regards,
Sebastiaan
>> And you can still think of partitioning it in 2 VM's if one is going to
>> have to be updated many times, but the rest is relatively stable...
>>
>> A huge number of VM's is just not very resource friendly... :-(
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sebastiaan
>>
>>
>> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>>
>>> Because I don't want to shut down jira, confluence, teamcity and so
>>> forth when deploying the examples.
>>>
>>> Martijn
>>>
>>> On 5/18/08, Sebastiaan van Erk <se...@sebster.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why not go with 1 VM and just use Tomcat's virtual hosting. Using
>> aliases
>>>> in apache you only need 1 virtual host (because it has to do the same
>> thing
>>>> for every host anyway, and that is forward to tomcat).
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Sebastiaan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Johan Compagner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> vm's? how many?
>>>>>
>>>>> vm's have 1 problem that they all need an excact amount of memory that
>>>>> they will consume. And the server has now 3G but that doesnt mean that
>>>>> we can run many vm's on it that all are running tomcat.. Because for
>>>>> that every vm must be configured to have a bit memory, atleast between
>>>>> 512M en 1G.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would just say if we want multiply instances then every thing that
>>>>> is pretty static can be in one
>>>>>
>>>> (teatime/repo/jira/teamcity/doc) and
>>>>
>>>>> all the examples could go into another. I dont see more gain in having
>>>>> it split up even more.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/18/08, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, it would make adding VMs set up to run a "site" very easy.
>> They
>>>>>> would all look the same (tomcat/jetty, JDK, svn, etc.). So, you'd
>>>>>> know exactly where to go to make changes. I use Apache virtual
>> hosts
>>>>>> at home, too, but I don't have that many domains set up (I have 2 I
>>>>>> think). Setting up a new instance of Tomcat/Jetty for each one of
>>>>>> these sites and maintaining the proxy forwards in Apache can be a
>>>>>> PITA. That's just my $0.02. The sites shouldn't need that much
>>>>>> memory anyway (JIRA/TeamCity might require more of course).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Timo Rantalaiho
>> <Ti...@ri.fi>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 18 May 2008, James Carman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How about setting them up as VMs?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This might require partitioning the memory statically for
>>>>>>> each virtual server. I think that name-based virtual hosts
>>>>>>> by Apache on the front would probably be the most cost-
>>>>>>> effective solution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Timo Rantalaiho
>>>>>>> Reaktor Innovations Oy <URL: http://www.ri.fi/ >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: Restructure container(s) at wicketstuff.org server?
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
On 5/18/08, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> reboot doesnt cost that long anymore
> i think it is pretty fast now up and running.
I just looked in the logs:
May 18, 2008 11:52:46 AM org.apache.catalina.startup.HostConfig deployWAR
INFO: Deploying web application archive grid-examples.war
May 18, 2008 11:52:46 AM org.apache.catalina.startup.HostConfig deployWAR
INFO: Deploying web application archive teatime.war
May 18, 2008 11:52:55 AM org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11Protocol start
INFO: Starting Coyote HTTP/1.1 on http-8090
May 18, 2008 11:52:56 AM org.apache.jk.common.ChannelSocket init
INFO: JK: ajp13 listening on /0.0.0.0:8009
May 18, 2008 11:52:56 AM org.apache.jk.server.JkMain start
INFO: Jk running ID=0 time=0/52 config=null
May 18, 2008 11:52:56 AM org.apache.catalina.startup.Catalina start
INFO: Server startup in 131655 ms
131000 milliseconds is > 2 minutes
> i still think we can do with 2 just fine 1 for the app and static stuff
> and 1 for all the examples.
OK. But I'm not just talking about teatime. My guess is that elephas
will need a home.
> that teatime is updated that can be done just fine a couple of time without
> restarting
> and if teatime is updated for a couple of time because of some love then
> just throw it into the examples tomcat for a while
> when it is stable move it again. That is pretty simple
ok.
Martijn
Re: Restructure container(s) at wicketstuff.org server?
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
reboot doesnt cost that long anymore
i think it is pretty fast now up and running.
i still think we can do with 2 just fine 1 for the app and static stuff
and 1 for all the examples.
that teatime is updated that can be done just fine a couple of time without
restarting
and if teatime is updated for a couple of time because of some love then
just throw it into the examples tomcat for a while
when it is stable move it again. That is pretty simple
johan
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/18/08, Sebastiaan van Erk <se...@sebster.com> wrote:
> > Hmm, what's wrong with redeploy without restarting tomcat. :-)
>
> This just doesn't work.
> 1. permgen space errors
> 2. reboot of server takes >2minutes
> 3. VM size > 2G is also very resource unfriendly for the GC
> 4. fast redeploy is very welcome
>
> > And you can still think of partitioning it in 2 VM's if one is going to
> > have to be updated many times, but the rest is relatively stable...
> >
> > A huge number of VM's is just not very resource friendly... :-(
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sebastiaan
> >
> >
> > Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> >
> > > Because I don't want to shut down jira, confluence, teamcity and so
> > > forth when deploying the examples.
> > >
> > > Martijn
> > >
> > > On 5/18/08, Sebastiaan van Erk <se...@sebster.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why not go with 1 VM and just use Tomcat's virtual hosting. Using
> > aliases
> > > > in apache you only need 1 virtual host (because it has to do the same
> > thing
> > > > for every host anyway, and that is forward to tomcat).
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Sebastiaan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Johan Compagner wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > vm's? how many?
> > > > >
> > > > > vm's have 1 problem that they all need an excact amount of memory
> that
> > > > > they will consume. And the server has now 3G but that doesnt mean
> that
> > > > > we can run many vm's on it that all are running tomcat.. Because
> for
> > > > > that every vm must be configured to have a bit memory, atleast
> between
> > > > > 512M en 1G.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would just say if we want multiply instances then every thing
> that
> > > > > is pretty static can be in one
> > > > >
> > > > (teatime/repo/jira/teamcity/doc) and
> > > >
> > > > > all the examples could go into another. I dont see more gain in
> having
> > > > > it split up even more.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5/18/08, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, it would make adding VMs set up to run a "site" very easy.
> > They
> > > > > > would all look the same (tomcat/jetty, JDK, svn, etc.). So,
> you'd
> > > > > > know exactly where to go to make changes. I use Apache virtual
> > hosts
> > > > > > at home, too, but I don't have that many domains set up (I have 2
> I
> > > > > > think). Setting up a new instance of Tomcat/Jetty for each one
> of
> > > > > > these sites and maintaining the proxy forwards in Apache can be a
> > > > > > PITA. That's just my $0.02. The sites shouldn't need that much
> > > > > > memory anyway (JIRA/TeamCity might require more of course).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Timo Rantalaiho
> > <Ti...@ri.fi>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, 18 May 2008, James Carman wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How about setting them up as VMs?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This might require partitioning the memory statically for
> > > > > > > each virtual server. I think that name-based virtual hosts
> > > > > > > by Apache on the front would probably be the most cost-
> > > > > > > effective solution.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > Timo
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Timo Rantalaiho
> > > > > > > Reaktor Innovations Oy <URL: http://www.ri.fi/ >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released
> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3
>
Re: Restructure container(s) at wicketstuff.org server?
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
On 5/18/08, Sebastiaan van Erk <se...@sebster.com> wrote:
> Hmm, what's wrong with redeploy without restarting tomcat. :-)
This just doesn't work.
1. permgen space errors
2. reboot of server takes >2minutes
3. VM size > 2G is also very resource unfriendly for the GC
4. fast redeploy is very welcome
> And you can still think of partitioning it in 2 VM's if one is going to
> have to be updated many times, but the rest is relatively stable...
>
> A huge number of VM's is just not very resource friendly... :-(
>
> Regards,
> Sebastiaan
>
>
> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>
> > Because I don't want to shut down jira, confluence, teamcity and so
> > forth when deploying the examples.
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> > On 5/18/08, Sebastiaan van Erk <se...@sebster.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Why not go with 1 VM and just use Tomcat's virtual hosting. Using
> aliases
> > > in apache you only need 1 virtual host (because it has to do the same
> thing
> > > for every host anyway, and that is forward to tomcat).
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Sebastiaan
> > >
> > >
> > > Johan Compagner wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > vm's? how many?
> > > >
> > > > vm's have 1 problem that they all need an excact amount of memory that
> > > > they will consume. And the server has now 3G but that doesnt mean that
> > > > we can run many vm's on it that all are running tomcat.. Because for
> > > > that every vm must be configured to have a bit memory, atleast between
> > > > 512M en 1G.
> > > >
> > > > I would just say if we want multiply instances then every thing that
> > > > is pretty static can be in one
> > > >
> > > (teatime/repo/jira/teamcity/doc) and
> > >
> > > > all the examples could go into another. I dont see more gain in having
> > > > it split up even more.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 5/18/08, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Well, it would make adding VMs set up to run a "site" very easy.
> They
> > > > > would all look the same (tomcat/jetty, JDK, svn, etc.). So, you'd
> > > > > know exactly where to go to make changes. I use Apache virtual
> hosts
> > > > > at home, too, but I don't have that many domains set up (I have 2 I
> > > > > think). Setting up a new instance of Tomcat/Jetty for each one of
> > > > > these sites and maintaining the proxy forwards in Apache can be a
> > > > > PITA. That's just my $0.02. The sites shouldn't need that much
> > > > > memory anyway (JIRA/TeamCity might require more of course).
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Timo Rantalaiho
> <Ti...@ri.fi>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, 18 May 2008, James Carman wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > How about setting them up as VMs?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > This might require partitioning the memory statically for
> > > > > > each virtual server. I think that name-based virtual hosts
> > > > > > by Apache on the front would probably be the most cost-
> > > > > > effective solution.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > Timo
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Timo Rantalaiho
> > > > > > Reaktor Innovations Oy <URL: http://www.ri.fi/ >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3
Re: Restructure container(s) at wicketstuff.org server?
Posted by Sebastiaan van Erk <se...@sebster.com>.
Hmm, what's wrong with redeploy without restarting tomcat. :-)
And you can still think of partitioning it in 2 VM's if one is going to
have to be updated many times, but the rest is relatively stable...
A huge number of VM's is just not very resource friendly... :-(
Regards,
Sebastiaan
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> Because I don't want to shut down jira, confluence, teamcity and so
> forth when deploying the examples.
>
> Martijn
>
> On 5/18/08, Sebastiaan van Erk <se...@sebster.com> wrote:
>> Why not go with 1 VM and just use Tomcat's virtual hosting. Using aliases
>> in apache you only need 1 virtual host (because it has to do the same thing
>> for every host anyway, and that is forward to tomcat).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sebastiaan
>>
>>
>> Johan Compagner wrote:
>>
>>> vm's? how many?
>>>
>>> vm's have 1 problem that they all need an excact amount of memory that
>>> they will consume. And the server has now 3G but that doesnt mean that
>>> we can run many vm's on it that all are running tomcat.. Because for
>>> that every vm must be configured to have a bit memory, atleast between
>>> 512M en 1G.
>>>
>>> I would just say if we want multiply instances then every thing that
>>> is pretty static can be in one
>> (teatime/repo/jira/teamcity/doc) and
>>> all the examples could go into another. I dont see more gain in having
>>> it split up even more.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/18/08, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, it would make adding VMs set up to run a "site" very easy. They
>>>> would all look the same (tomcat/jetty, JDK, svn, etc.). So, you'd
>>>> know exactly where to go to make changes. I use Apache virtual hosts
>>>> at home, too, but I don't have that many domains set up (I have 2 I
>>>> think). Setting up a new instance of Tomcat/Jetty for each one of
>>>> these sites and maintaining the proxy forwards in Apache can be a
>>>> PITA. That's just my $0.02. The sites shouldn't need that much
>>>> memory anyway (JIRA/TeamCity might require more of course).
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Timo Rantalaiho <Ti...@ri.fi>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 18 May 2008, James Carman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> How about setting them up as VMs?
>>>>>>
>>>>> This might require partitioning the memory statically for
>>>>> each virtual server. I think that name-based virtual hosts
>>>>> by Apache on the front would probably be the most cost-
>>>>> effective solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>> Timo
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Timo Rantalaiho
>>>>> Reaktor Innovations Oy <URL: http://www.ri.fi/ >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>
>
Re: Restructure container(s) at wicketstuff.org server?
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
Because I don't want to shut down jira, confluence, teamcity and so
forth when deploying the examples.
Martijn
On 5/18/08, Sebastiaan van Erk <se...@sebster.com> wrote:
> Why not go with 1 VM and just use Tomcat's virtual hosting. Using aliases
> in apache you only need 1 virtual host (because it has to do the same thing
> for every host anyway, and that is forward to tomcat).
>
> Regards,
> Sebastiaan
>
>
> Johan Compagner wrote:
>
> > vm's? how many?
> >
> > vm's have 1 problem that they all need an excact amount of memory that
> > they will consume. And the server has now 3G but that doesnt mean that
> > we can run many vm's on it that all are running tomcat.. Because for
> > that every vm must be configured to have a bit memory, atleast between
> > 512M en 1G.
> >
> > I would just say if we want multiply instances then every thing that
> > is pretty static can be in one
> (teatime/repo/jira/teamcity/doc) and
> > all the examples could go into another. I dont see more gain in having
> > it split up even more.
> >
> >
> > On 5/18/08, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Well, it would make adding VMs set up to run a "site" very easy. They
> > > would all look the same (tomcat/jetty, JDK, svn, etc.). So, you'd
> > > know exactly where to go to make changes. I use Apache virtual hosts
> > > at home, too, but I don't have that many domains set up (I have 2 I
> > > think). Setting up a new instance of Tomcat/Jetty for each one of
> > > these sites and maintaining the proxy forwards in Apache can be a
> > > PITA. That's just my $0.02. The sites shouldn't need that much
> > > memory anyway (JIRA/TeamCity might require more of course).
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Timo Rantalaiho <Ti...@ri.fi>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, 18 May 2008, James Carman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > How about setting them up as VMs?
> > > > >
> > > > This might require partitioning the memory statically for
> > > > each virtual server. I think that name-based virtual hosts
> > > > by Apache on the front would probably be the most cost-
> > > > effective solution.
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes,
> > > > Timo
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Timo Rantalaiho
> > > > Reaktor Innovations Oy <URL: http://www.ri.fi/ >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3
Re: Restructure container(s) at wicketstuff.org server?
Posted by Sebastiaan van Erk <se...@sebster.com>.
Why not go with 1 VM and just use Tomcat's virtual hosting. Using
aliases in apache you only need 1 virtual host (because it has to do
the same thing for every host anyway, and that is forward to tomcat).
Regards,
Sebastiaan
Johan Compagner wrote:
> vm's? how many?
>
> vm's have 1 problem that they all need an excact amount of memory that
> they will consume. And the server has now 3G but that doesnt mean that
> we can run many vm's on it that all are running tomcat.. Because for
> that every vm must be configured to have a bit memory, atleast between
> 512M en 1G.
>
> I would just say if we want multiply instances then every thing that
> is pretty static can be in one (teatime/repo/jira/teamcity/doc) and
> all the examples could go into another. I dont see more gain in having
> it split up even more.
>
>
> On 5/18/08, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>> Well, it would make adding VMs set up to run a "site" very easy. They
>> would all look the same (tomcat/jetty, JDK, svn, etc.). So, you'd
>> know exactly where to go to make changes. I use Apache virtual hosts
>> at home, too, but I don't have that many domains set up (I have 2 I
>> think). Setting up a new instance of Tomcat/Jetty for each one of
>> these sites and maintaining the proxy forwards in Apache can be a
>> PITA. That's just my $0.02. The sites shouldn't need that much
>> memory anyway (JIRA/TeamCity might require more of course).
>>
>> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Timo Rantalaiho <Ti...@ri.fi>
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 May 2008, James Carman wrote:
>>>> How about setting them up as VMs?
>>> This might require partitioning the memory statically for
>>> each virtual server. I think that name-based virtual hosts
>>> by Apache on the front would probably be the most cost-
>>> effective solution.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Timo
>>>
>>> --
>>> Timo Rantalaiho
>>> Reaktor Innovations Oy <URL: http://www.ri.fi/ >
>>>
Re: Restructure container(s) at wicketstuff.org server?
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Martijn Dashorst
<ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2 or 3. There are some sites that I'd like to run outside examples and
> the 'production' instances. For example the teatime application will
> receive some loving care soon and need some restarts. I'd like to do
> that without affecting the 'production' apps that drive our community
> (also without having to wait for 2 minute while jira, confluence et al
> start up).
>
> I do see that we are still limited in the amount of memory we can
> claim for each vm. I'd do the following partitioning:
>
> - jira/confluence/teamcity/maven repo : 768MB
> - wicket examples: 512MB
> - teatime/other apps: 256MB
> - teamcity build agent: 768MB
>
> Total: 2304MB
>
> This leaves 768MB for OS level stuff, such as file sytem cache, databases, etc.
>
> Sounds reasonable?
I think that sounds reasonable. I guess we'll just have to see how it performs.
Re: Restructure container(s) at wicketstuff.org server?
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
> - teamcity build agent: 768MB
>
>
does the build agent really need that much?
are you numbers heapsizes??
do remember that class code cache and perm gen also cost 150+ MB and the JVM
itself cost memory
it is not that it is just heapsize.
I only think that heapsize is not that much needed if i look at the current
running tomcat session after 8 hours up:
Free: 94.4 MB Total: 331.5 MB
PS Perm Gen [image: +][image: +][image: +][image: +][image:
+][image: +][image:
+][image: +][image: +][image: +][image: +][image: +]
130.34Mb 156.13Mb 180.00Mb 16.00Mb NON_HEAP Code Cache
[image: +][image:
+][image: +][image: +][image: +][image: +][image: +][image: +][image: +][image:
+][image: +][image: +]
20.33Mb 20.38Mb 48.00Mb 2.25Mb NON_HEAP
looking at th code cache and perm thats now already 150MB
johan
Re: Restructure container(s) at wicketstuff.org server?
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
2 or 3. There are some sites that I'd like to run outside examples and
the 'production' instances. For example the teatime application will
receive some loving care soon and need some restarts. I'd like to do
that without affecting the 'production' apps that drive our community
(also without having to wait for 2 minute while jira, confluence et al
start up).
I do see that we are still limited in the amount of memory we can
claim for each vm. I'd do the following partitioning:
- jira/confluence/teamcity/maven repo : 768MB
- wicket examples: 512MB
- teatime/other apps: 256MB
- teamcity build agent: 768MB
Total: 2304MB
This leaves 768MB for OS level stuff, such as file sytem cache, databases, etc.
Sounds reasonable?
Martijn
On 5/18/08, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> vm's? how many?
>
> vm's have 1 problem that they all need an excact amount of memory that
> they will consume. And the server has now 3G but that doesnt mean that
> we can run many vm's on it that all are running tomcat.. Because for
> that every vm must be configured to have a bit memory, atleast between
> 512M en 1G.
>
> I would just say if we want multiply instances then every thing that
> is pretty static can be in one (teatime/repo/jira/teamcity/doc) and
> all the examples could go into another. I dont see more gain in having
> it split up even more.
>
>
>
> On 5/18/08, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> > Well, it would make adding VMs set up to run a "site" very easy. They
> > would all look the same (tomcat/jetty, JDK, svn, etc.). So, you'd
> > know exactly where to go to make changes. I use Apache virtual hosts
> > at home, too, but I don't have that many domains set up (I have 2 I
> > think). Setting up a new instance of Tomcat/Jetty for each one of
> > these sites and maintaining the proxy forwards in Apache can be a
> > PITA. That's just my $0.02. The sites shouldn't need that much
> > memory anyway (JIRA/TeamCity might require more of course).
> >
> > On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Timo Rantalaiho <Ti...@ri.fi>
> > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 May 2008, James Carman wrote:
> >>> How about setting them up as VMs?
> >>
> >> This might require partitioning the memory statically for
> >> each virtual server. I think that name-based virtual hosts
> >> by Apache on the front would probably be the most cost-
> >> effective solution.
> >>
> >> Best wishes,
> >> Timo
> >>
> >> --
> >> Timo Rantalaiho
> >> Reaktor Innovations Oy <URL: http://www.ri.fi/ >
> >>
> >
>
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3
Re: Restructure container(s) at wicketstuff.org server?
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
vm's? how many?
vm's have 1 problem that they all need an excact amount of memory that
they will consume. And the server has now 3G but that doesnt mean that
we can run many vm's on it that all are running tomcat.. Because for
that every vm must be configured to have a bit memory, atleast between
512M en 1G.
I would just say if we want multiply instances then every thing that
is pretty static can be in one (teatime/repo/jira/teamcity/doc) and
all the examples could go into another. I dont see more gain in having
it split up even more.
On 5/18/08, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> Well, it would make adding VMs set up to run a "site" very easy. They
> would all look the same (tomcat/jetty, JDK, svn, etc.). So, you'd
> know exactly where to go to make changes. I use Apache virtual hosts
> at home, too, but I don't have that many domains set up (I have 2 I
> think). Setting up a new instance of Tomcat/Jetty for each one of
> these sites and maintaining the proxy forwards in Apache can be a
> PITA. That's just my $0.02. The sites shouldn't need that much
> memory anyway (JIRA/TeamCity might require more of course).
>
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Timo Rantalaiho <Ti...@ri.fi>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 May 2008, James Carman wrote:
>>> How about setting them up as VMs?
>>
>> This might require partitioning the memory statically for
>> each virtual server. I think that name-based virtual hosts
>> by Apache on the front would probably be the most cost-
>> effective solution.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Timo
>>
>> --
>> Timo Rantalaiho
>> Reaktor Innovations Oy <URL: http://www.ri.fi/ >
>>
>
Re: Restructure container(s) at wicketstuff.org server?
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
Well, it would make adding VMs set up to run a "site" very easy. They
would all look the same (tomcat/jetty, JDK, svn, etc.). So, you'd
know exactly where to go to make changes. I use Apache virtual hosts
at home, too, but I don't have that many domains set up (I have 2 I
think). Setting up a new instance of Tomcat/Jetty for each one of
these sites and maintaining the proxy forwards in Apache can be a
PITA. That's just my $0.02. The sites shouldn't need that much
memory anyway (JIRA/TeamCity might require more of course).
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Timo Rantalaiho <Ti...@ri.fi> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008, James Carman wrote:
>> How about setting them up as VMs?
>
> This might require partitioning the memory statically for
> each virtual server. I think that name-based virtual hosts
> by Apache on the front would probably be the most cost-
> effective solution.
>
> Best wishes,
> Timo
>
> --
> Timo Rantalaiho
> Reaktor Innovations Oy <URL: http://www.ri.fi/ >
>
Re: Restructure container(s) at wicketstuff.org server?
Posted by Timo Rantalaiho <Ti...@ri.fi>.
On Sun, 18 May 2008, James Carman wrote:
> How about setting them up as VMs?
This might require partitioning the memory statically for
each virtual server. I think that name-based virtual hosts
by Apache on the front would probably be the most cost-
effective solution.
Best wishes,
Timo
--
Timo Rantalaiho
Reaktor Innovations Oy <URL: http://www.ri.fi/ >
Re: Restructure container(s) at wicketstuff.org server?
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
How about setting them up as VMs?
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Martijn Dashorst
<ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> is it a good idea to restructure the server a bit?
>
> I'd like to have:
> - builds.wicketstuff.org
> - repo.wicketstuff.org
> - snapshots.wicketstuff.org
> - issues.wicketstuff.org
> - wiki.wicketstuff.org
> - examples.wicketstuff.org
>
> I'd like to be able to have multiple containers running on the box, so
> we can restart for example the wicket examples without having to
> restart the builds/issues/confluence instance.
>
> We could set repo.wicketstuff.org up so that it syncs with the central
> repository.
>
> So I'd like the following containers running:
> - builds/jira/confluence/maven repo
> - examples
> - mini containers for small production type of apps, such as wicket
> bot, teatime, etc.
>
> I don't have root access, and I'm not that experienced in setting such
> a thing up, but I am willing to learn.
>
> Martijn
>
> --
> Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released
> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3
>