[Seaside] Re: hosting Seaside apps

Cees de Groot cg at cdegroot.com
Tue Dec 14 11:54:40 CET 2004


On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:30:35 -0500, Yanni Chiu <yanni at rogers.com> wrote:
> Would the hosting company providing a virtual dedicated server
> have a big issue (i.e. don't it here) with a Squeak image that
> consumes about 3% of cpu when "idle"?

Probably not. It'd become a problem if a hosting company dedicates a  
machine to Squeak images and the combined load of 20-or-so UML partitions  
would be 60% CPU... Therefore, IMNSHO, a Squeak server image should use  
CPU time below anything that's measurable when it is really idle (<<0.1% -  
note that 0.1% of a 2.6GHz machine is 2.6Mhz, so you've got roughly the  
full processing power of a PC XT at your disposal when 'idling' in that  
case. Should be enough to make an occasional check whether there's any  
work around ;-)).

> The other issue I recall was that Squeak's socket usage had
> some issues - something to do with which network interface
> to use (e.g. on machines with more than one). Sorry, I didn't
> understand the issue then, and still don't. Perhaps there's
> no such problem on a virtual server with only one virtual
> network interface.
>
That's no issue at all in any virtualized environment (whether a UML  
virtual machine, a FreeBSD 'jail' style partition, or the other Linux  
partitioning scheme based on chroot-on-steroids I forgot about). Shall I  
explain it here? It's not that hard.


More information about the Seaside mailing list