Much more!thanks2013/1/8 Mike McGrath <mmcgrath redhat com>On Tue, 8 Jan 2013, Diego Spinola Castro wrote:
> I'm quite confuse, an apache gear with 512mb is able to handle the same number as 1gb gear? if is true, why wouldn't increase apache max_clients conf ? Just doing the devil's question. Wondering someMost people don't have access to larger gears (unless they've emailed us
> customer asking: Why wouldn't use larger gears?
at openshift redhat com and requested them) and ultimately when the
commercial offering is complete, they'll also cost more than the small
In terms of increasing max_clients, in traditional computing that's what
you would do. With our PaaS we're working with lots of small building
blocks. For example, instead of 1 1G gear, our architecture would
recommend two 512M gears. The goal is lots of small computing resources
working together, not few large ones.
We understand though that many applications aren't written with this new
architecture in mind yet which is why we also offer the larger gears at
the application tier.
Databases are a whole other discussion but I think the need for larger
gears there is more obvious.
Does this make more sense to you?
> 2013/1/8 Mike McGrath <mmcgrath redhat com>
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2013, Diego Spinola Castro wrote:
> > Hi guys, i'm wondering how openshift handles cartridges sizes when autoscaling, looking into haproxy_ctld.rb code i found that autoscaling is based on current sessions and it's hardcoded by
> 10. What
> > happens if i use 1gb cartridges or even 2gb? Does openshift knows that it's a larger cartridge ?
> We've been looking for some more real world examples to get better
> baselines for these numbers. Keep in mind you really shouldn't be using
> larger gears for more users. There's some work to be done here to make it
> great but you should think of larger gears as the same number of users
> needing more memory per user.