Dear Joerg! I should have gone more into detail - I'm sorry! For clarification: I have several customers with tight connections to the pharmaceutic industry that have to have fully redundant systems for regulatory reasons (FDA/GxP/ISO)- that is why I don't use the typical Atom-CPUed-twin-SATA micro systems the invis concept is actually targeted at. I mainly use HPs DL 385/585s with it's large cached, battery backed SAS and SCSI controllers and at least twin quadcore opterons for redundancy reasons. These setups typically perform better under heavy loads with lots of single apps which can each grab a cpu core and make use of those 7plus disked arrays. I don't agree with a half working system being worse than a completely out of order one. If 50 people can't do their jobs it's not as hard on a company's budgets as if there were 100 - or all ov them ... You are absolutely right with your concerns about ease of administration but I'm selling these services ;-) Maybe a fork each of "invis light" and "invis heavy" should be considered ... Cheers Markus On 11/04/2010 05:14 PM, Jörg Stephan wrote:
I suggest staying with seperate DB-systems for Groupware, ERP, and the like for several reasons. First of all a DB crash only kills parts of the server, secondly the system load is distributed more evenly on multicore/multicpu boxes, backups - at least with bacula - are more straightforward, on hardware RAID5/6/10 disk access is faster, .... I could think of several more reasons but I don't want to be too chatty.
I don't like the single-datastore-idea (like the SME servers approach keeping everything in mysql) - it makes the systems too vulnerable. For example a corrupt mySQL instantly kills an SME box. Actually that (and the lack of 64bit support) made me switch from SME to invis ....
Fair enough!
But... To databases on an middles sized server are faster than one? the raid is faster when two databases access one disk? It is "more starightforward" making a backup of two databases than one? An even, i think a half crushed system is as worse than the hole system crashes, by the way it would be mor easy to administrate, giving the customer the opportunity using invis as a little webserver would also pint to mysql. And if the system (one of the databases) crashes, its for normal users hard to find out, just because of there will be only a part of the software which does not work, what normally make users just dont use them anymore.
But [2]... okay, we should use the two databases.
Jörg
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-invis+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-invis+help@opensuse.org