I have a Mercurial server on a simple server (Virtual Machine (VM)), and about 100 users with access. And from time to time, requests have been slow.
And since I can not change the hardware of this server, because the VM server no longer has available resources, and migrating it would do a great job.
I would like to know it is possible to have 2 mercurial servers, using the same database, because this would balance the load, and in one server would put a large team, and in the other the other teams. In short, I can not mess with the server you're on today.
VM:
Windows Server 2003 SP2
1.5GB Memory
60GB HD
Settings:
Python 2.7.2
Mercurial 2.5.4
RhodeCode 1.6.0rc1
Note:
Sorry if you're confused, this question was translated via google. If you can edit and rearrange it, I'll be very grateful.
This is certainly possible. If you have shares storage RhodeCode can use the same DB and load-balance load between machines.
Btw, 1.6.0 is very old I'd take a chance at upgrading this.
Related
I need to configure Magento 2.4.5 on RHEL. I need recommendation/best practices for below:
Should I go with RHEL 8.6 or 9.0? Don't want to go with Ubuntu or CentOS.
Should I host the database on a separate server, rather than running the database server and the
web server on the same machine?
What should be the minimum VM configuration in terms of RAM, processor, disk and cache for
Magento and mySQL. Considering the load on website can be around 3K users during peak time.
Regards,
Rajesh
I'm trying to develop fully stand-alone server that would be able to upgrade themselves without any human intervention. To be more acute, here are the requirements :
- Every nights the server checks for updates on a specified server :
- When a upgrade is available, it downloads a new configuration file or something
- Then the server proceeds its upgrade but if anything goes wrong (internet connection is lost or something is badly downloaded) the server rolls back to its previous configuration.
In fact we don't really care if the server isn't up to date but we want to be sure that its still running (even in a old version). I've looked for configuration management system and found fancy tools like Puppet. But, for instance, if puppet can't download a new debian package, the update will failed and there's a risk that the server can't fullfil it's task.
So i was wondering, do I have to check if every packages are correctly downloaded before launching the upgrade or is there any fancy tools that can do it for me and rollback if needed ?
One point is very important, once a server is deploy, we can't have any access to it. That's why it's better to have it running in an older version than to have it not running.
I hope that you'll understand my issue, sorry for my english
Julian
I've got a bit of an obscure problem and I'm hoping someone here can give me some pointers regarding it, I've exhausted everythign I can think of...
At the moment, I have a two node cluster setup (sql server 2008). I have patched this, as per the microsoft guidlines, to service pack 1. The issue is, when I connect to each node individually, I can see the version is 10.1.xxxx, but, when I connect to the cluster by it's name, it reports 10.0.xxxx (the pre-service-pack installation version).
I've tried restarting the cluster services, and also re-applying the patch (which is impossible, because the service pack installer reports the cluster is at 10.1.xxxx - sp1).
Any help/advice/ideas welcome.
Dave
I opened a microsoft support ticket for this, and had the issue corrected by an extremely helpful MS support engineer - sadly, I'm not sure of the details of the fix.
Dave
I was wondering if it was possible or is there a way of using that all together on one machine without virtualization
I don't think so. The only option for running Windows apps directly would be something like Crossover but SQL Server is known not to work with Crossover (or WINE on Linux for that matter).
Unlike typical Windows apps, SQL Server is likely to be deeply integrated with the OS for operations like disk access, etc.
With enough memory, virtualisation is probably the best way to go - you should be able to access the 'remote' virtualised database easily enough.
[edit]
I should note that I need to do this on a live production server. The MS SQL Server is already attached to our website and supports a 3rd party ERP package. I want to set up a separate database that I can code against for some auxiliary pages and internal-use apps) which will be completely independent (mostly for security, but also because I prefer mySQL) from the ERP solution.
[end edit]
The MS SQL 2005 express db is already installed and in use, so I don't want to hose it.
Will this create problems, or have you done it successfully?
Aside from performance issues, assuming they're both continuously used, there shouldn't be a problem.
For a development machine this is safe to do. The two database servers listen on different ports, so there is no problem of running both at the same time.
I wouldn't recommend it though for a production system.
Like Assaf said, the only thing you should worry about are possible performance issues with both database services getting run at the same time. Other than that you should have no worries concerning the integrity of the two. They are completely separate and should not have any sort of conflicts.