[Seaside] Re: Which persistence solution to use?
Smalltalk at jgfoster.net
Mon May 14 15:10:31 UTC 2007
On Monday 14 May 2007 12:47 am, Udo Schneider wrote:
> James Foster wrote:
> > Why do you need multiple instances? Is one instance unable to handle the
> > requests?
> # of requests is only the surface of the problem. The squeak instances
> are doing some heavy picture manipulating work in the background.
> Although this is done via C code (FFI and InterpreterPlugins) this is
> still quite slow. From first testing I'd go for 20 Sessions max per CPU
> (P4 2 Ghz). So that's the bottleneck. Hence the idea to put the DB on a
> shared NAS to keep as much CPU Power on the frontend as possible.
This is certainly a good use-case for multiple VMs. In any case, if you
distribute the work-load over multiple VMs I assume you will have a web
server in front distributing the requests among the Smalltalk VMs.
> >>> http://seaside.gemstone.com/
> >>> http://gemstonesoup.wordpress.com/
> >> Saw that and was quite impressed to be honest. What about availibilty?
> >> .... and pricing!
> > Availability was announced as Q3 (we are aiming for ESUG).
> > Pricing is "no cost" for a database under 4 GB.
> Now that's very interesting. Does GS allow one to seperate into an DB
> backend and DB frontend? I mean having all the data shared in one DB and
> having the GS frontends doing the Seaside and local/temp storage stuff?
With GemStone/S each VM connected to the same "image" (or database) can see
all changes committed by other VMs. So, yes, you could divide things into a
backend and frontend. The "no-cost" edition does have a limit of two (2) VMs
connected to the database, so this approach is somewhat limited (without
moving up to the next level, which is an annual subscription of US$7000).
> Seaside mailing list
> Seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
More information about the seaside