[Seaside] deployment question
norbert at hartl.name
Thu Apr 4 20:43:17 UTC 2013
Am 04.04.2013 um 21:43 schrieb Dale Henrichs <dhenrich at vmware.com>:
> ----- Original Message -----
> | From: "Sven Van Caekenberghe" <sven at stfx.eu>
> | To: "Seaside - general discussion" <seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> | Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:05:11 AM
> | Subject: Re: [Seaside] deployment question
> | On 04 Apr 2013, at 18:57, Milan Mimica <milan.mimica at gmail.com> wrote:
> | > On 4 April 2013 18:49, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven at stfx.eu> wrote:
> | >
> | > The next step is load balancing over a couple of Smalltalk images (with
> | > sticky sessions aka session affinity).
> | >
> | > But then the images would probably have to share data somehow.
> | Yes, of course, it all depends on the application.
> | He started with simple image based persistence, it would be overkill to move
> | to GLASS IMHO.
> | If I remember correctly, DabbleDB got away with image based persistence, with
> | an image per user, starting it on demand.
> DabbleDB got away with "image based persistence", but they invested a fair amount of work in making their version of "image-based persistent" work ... they definitely did not use "simple-image-based persistence" as described by Ramon ... I believe that they leveraged a custom version of image-segments and a few other tricks that were anything but simple...
> So in the end I don't really think that you can say "DabbleDB got away with image based persistence" ...
I think you can. IIRC each customer had his own image. Images are started on request for a specific customer and shutdown after some time of inactivity. So that is pretty much what I would call image-based persistency :)
> seaside mailing list
> seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
More information about the seaside