[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: autoscaling



Hi Mike, Diego, all!

Mike, could you please clarify about development towards to  high availability of HAproxy gear?

And when it's will be releases for enterprise edition?

What practice can be used prior that moment?

Igor Laskovy
facebook.com/igor.laskovy
Kiev, Ukraine

On Jan 8, 2013 9:24 PM, "Mike McGrath" <mmcgrath redhat com> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2013, Diego Spinola Castro wrote:

> Mike, is very clear to me but lets go deeper. Sorry for annoying you but i need to be ready for dummy questions !In a tradicional environment i would use larger servers
> because i know apache needs more memory for start more clients and to be able to handle more sessions. Lets talk about Openshift PaaS, why an app wrote for handle scale will
> run better splited in small gears than larger one since apache is the same?
>

The theory is it won't run better, it'll run the same.  But you'll get
significant cost savings when increasing and decreasing gears when
compared to a traditional environment where you typically have to plan for
highest capacity even though you may only hit it 5% of the time.

        -Mike

>
>
> 2013/1/8 Diego Spinola Castro <spinolacastro gmail com>
>       Much more!thanks
>
>       2013/1/8 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 some
> > customer asking: Why wouldn't use larger gears?
> >
>
> Most people don't have access to larger gears (unless they've emailed us
> at openshift redhat com and requested them) and ultimately when the
> commercial offering is complete, they'll also cost more than the small
> gears.
>
> 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?
>
>         -Mike
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >         -Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev lists openshift redhat com
http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]