OFBiz › OFBiz - User

Multiple OFBiz instances running on a single machine

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

16 messages Options

Deyan Tsvetanov

Multiple OFBiz instances running on a single machine

Hi list,

I am trying to run 2 ofbiz instances on the same server. Ideally I would
make all the containers ( framework/base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml )
bind on a specified host ( virtual interface ) instead of * or 0.0.0.0.

Before I start digging in that direction however I'd like to as if
somebody has already tried this exercise :)

Thanks in advance,
Deyan

Ashish Vijaywargiya-5

Re: Multiple OFBiz instances running on a single machine

Below is my post dated May 21, 2009 on the user mailing list on the User
Mailing list.
I guess you have missed my reply.
Please read the details, give it a try and if got stuckup somewhere then
come back to discuss the things.

------------------------------------------------------------
Yes this can be easily done in OFBiz.

Open ofbiz-containers.xml file.
(framework/base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml)
Change the value of port in all the property by name "port". For ex. you
can change http port from 8080 to 28080

Then open url.property file. (framework/webapp/config/url.properties)
Keep the value of http & https port same as you set in the
ofbiz-containers.xml file.

So now we have two instance of OFBiz server on the same machine.

-- One is running on 8080 & another one is running on 28080 port.

For accessing the same database you should keep the settings of database
same in entityengine.xml file.
This is all from my side.

Now its your turn to give it a try and if got stuck up somewhere in b/w
then shoot an email on mailing list.
Thanks !

--
Ashish
-------------------------------------------------------------

--
Ashish

Deyan Tsvetanov wrote:

> Hi list,
>
> I am trying to run 2 ofbiz instances on the same server. Ideally I would
> make all the containers ( framework/base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml )
> bind on a specified host ( virtual interface ) instead of * or 0.0.0.0.
>
> Before I start digging in that direction however I'd like to as if
> somebody has already tried this exercise :)
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Deyan
>
>

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment

Deyan Tsvetanov

Re: Multiple OFBiz instances running on a single machine

Hi Ashish,

thanks for your reply .

As I can see you have chosen the approach to change the port numbers.

I am currently trying the 2nd one - to bind all the ports to a single
virtual interface by removing all the localhost, 127.0.0.1 and 0.0.0.0
occurances. Currently I am stuck on the RMI registry , as

LocateRegistry.createRegistry(namingPort);

( org.ofbiz.base.container.NamingServiceContainer.start(NamingServiceContainer.java:62) )

accepts only port number and always binds to localhost.

I'm working on that. If I manage to run 2 of these guys ( ofbiz ) on
separate network interfaces without any collisions or cross rmi calls
I'll post a notice.

If I don't succeed than I'll just go on by changing the port numbers
only as you have described.

So- stay tuned :)

Thanks again for your reply.

Cheers,
Deyan

On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 18:26 +0530, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:

> Below is my post dated May 21, 2009 on the user mailing list on the User
> Mailing list.
> I guess you have missed my reply.
> Please read the details, give it a try and if got stuckup somewhere then
> come back to discuss the things.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Yes this can be easily done in OFBiz.
>
> Open ofbiz-containers.xml file.
> (framework/base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml)
> Change the value of port in all the property by name "port". For ex. you
> can change http port from 8080 to 28080
>
> Then open url.property file. (framework/webapp/config/url.properties)
> Keep the value of http & https port same as you set in the
> ofbiz-containers.xml file.
>
> So now we have two instance of OFBiz server on the same machine.
>
> -- One is running on 8080 & another one is running on 28080 port.
>
> For accessing the same database you should keep the settings of database
> same in entityengine.xml file.
> This is all from my side.
>
> Now its your turn to give it a try and if got stuck up somewhere in b/w
> then shoot an email on mailing list.
> Thanks !
>

Ashish Vijaywargiya-5

Re: Multiple OFBiz instances running on a single machine

Sure, Let us know what you found, when you are done.
BTW your name is very nice.... "Deyan"

--
Ashish

Deyan Tsvetanov wrote:

> Hi Ashish,
>
> thanks for your reply .
>
> As I can see you have chosen the approach to change the port numbers.
>
> I am currently trying the 2nd one - to bind all the ports to a single
> virtual interface by removing all the localhost, 127.0.0.1 and 0.0.0.0
> occurances. Currently I am stuck on the RMI registry , as
>
> LocateRegistry.createRegistry(namingPort);
>
> ( org.ofbiz.base.container.NamingServiceContainer.start(NamingServiceContainer.java:62) )
>
> accepts only port number and always binds to localhost.
>
> I'm working on that. If I manage to run 2 of these guys ( ofbiz ) on
> separate network interfaces without any collisions or cross rmi calls
> I'll post a notice.
>
> If I don't succeed than I'll just go on by changing the port numbers
> only as you have described.
>
> So- stay tuned :)
>
> Thanks again for your reply.
>
> Cheers,
> Deyan
>
>
>

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment

Deyan Tsvetanov

Re: Multiple OFBiz instances running on a single machine

Hi,

thanks - it seems to mean something in China, probably in India too...
Once I tried to buy deyan.com to use it for my personal e-mail but it was already taken.So a Chinese guy contacted me trying to offer me "Deyan for my business" .
The world is small :)

So on the issue: finally I managed to start OFBiz using a single interface ( in my case 192.168.1.200 - a virtual network interface wlan0:0 ).

$ netstat -anp | grep java
(Not all processes could be identified, non-owned process info
will not be shown, you would have to be root to see it all.)
tcp6       0      0 :::9989                 :::*                    LISTEN      3901/java
tcp6       0      0 :::9990                 :::*                    LISTEN      3901/java
tcp6       0      0 192.168.1.200:8009      :::*                    LISTEN      3901/java
tcp6       0      0 192.168.1.200:1099      :::*                    LISTEN      3901/java
tcp6       0      0 192.168.1.200:8080      :::*                    LISTEN      3901/java
tcp6       0      0 :::56434                :::*                    LISTEN      3901/java
tcp6       0      0 192.168.1.200:8443      :::*                    LISTEN      3901/java
tcp6       0      0 127.0.0.1:10523         :::*                    LISTEN      3901/java
tcp6       0      0 127.0.0.1:39653         127.0.0.1:5432          ESTABLISHED 3901/java
tcp6       0      0 127.0.0.1:39717         127.0.0.1:5432          ESTABLISHED 3901/java

I have got only the following ports bound on all interfaces:
- 9989, 9990 - the beanshell telnet service - which could be turned off for production usage.
- 10523 - the admin port, which IMHO is better to remain on 127.0.0.1 for security reasons. It's not a big deal to change it in startofbiz.sh and stopofbiz.sh and document it somewhere :)
- 56434 - which I still know nothing about.

The most important thing is that I managed to run the RMI registry on the specified interface: 192.168.1.200:1099 .
I had to create a new java.rmi.server.RMISocketFactory implementantion and patch a little bit org.ofbiz.base.container.NamingServiceContainer.
I am attaching the patch file. Please review it, I'm ready to discuss it.

The idea behind all this is that if one ( in this case - me :) has to host many ( more than one ) OFBiz instances on 1 server it would be a real pain
to configure different ports for each OFBiz instance. This way OFBiz could become like netweaver - the first digit of the port number is the instance number :)
( 28080 - instance 2, port 8080 )

So I am offering a simple solution to the problem. The next step could probably be to create a global config entry for the interface to which we want ofbiz to bind all its server sockets.
This would minimize the chance to forget modifying some of the config files.

An example of a config file that could be easily forgotten to modify is :

$OFBIZ_HOME/framework/service/config/serviceengine.xml

which in my case I modified to :

    <service-location name$OFBIZ_HOME/framework/service/config/serviceengine.xml="main-rmi" location="rmi://192.168.1.200:1099/RMIDispatcher"/>
        <service-location name="main-http" location="http://192.168.1.200:8080/webtools/control/httpService"/>

        <service-location name="entity-sync-rmi" location="rmi://192.168.1.200:1099/RMIDispatcher"/>
        <service-location name="entity-sync-http" location="http://192.168.1.200:8080/webtools/control/httpService"/>

        <service-location name="rita-rmi" location="rmi://192.168.1.200:1099/RMIDispatcher"/>
        <service-location name="eedcc-test" location="http://192.168.1.200:8080/webtools/control/httpService"/>

That's all for now from me,
waiting for comments.

Best regards,
Deyan

On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 18:43 +0530, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:

Sure, Let us know what you found, when you are done.
BTW your name is very nice.... "Deyan"

--
Ashish

Deyan Tsvetanov wrote:
> Hi Ashish,  
>
> thanks for your reply . 
>
> As I can see you have chosen the approach to change the port numbers. 
>
> I am currently trying the 2nd one - to bind all the ports to a single
> virtual interface by removing all the localhost, 127.0.0.1 and 0.0.0.0
> occurances. Currently I am stuck on the RMI registry , as 
>
> LocateRegistry.createRegistry(namingPort);
>
> ( org.ofbiz.base.container.NamingServiceContainer.start(NamingServiceContainer.java:62) ) 
>
>  accepts only port number and always binds to localhost. 
>
> I'm working on that. If I manage to run 2 of these guys ( ofbiz ) on
> separate network interfaces without any collisions or cross rmi calls
> I'll  post a notice.  
>
> If I don't succeed than I'll just go on by changing the port numbers
> only as you have described.
>
> So- stay tuned :)
>
> Thanks again for your reply. 
>
> Cheers, 
> Deyan 
>
>   
>

NamingServiceContainer_rmi_registry_bind_interface.patch (5K) Download Attachment

BJ Freeman

Re: Multiple OFBiz instances running on a single machine

In reply to this post by Deyan Tsvetanov

The way I chose was to use ajp and change those ports. This makes
updating from the SVN easier.
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/FAQ+-+Tips+-+Tricks+-+Cookbook+-+HowTo#FAQ-Tips-Tricks-Cookbook-HowTo-HTTPD

Ashish Vijaywargiya sent the following on 5/25/2009 5:56 AM:

--
BJ Freeman
http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation
http://bjfreeman.elance.com
http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1237480&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro
Systems Integrator.

Deyan Tsvetanov

Re: Multiple OFBiz instances running on a single machine

I will definitely use AJP for production ! That's out of question :)

The problem is that you have only one localhost and only one 8009
port can be bound. For the 2nd OFBiz instance you have to 8009++
( increase ) . But then you have the RMI port to take care of - if you
start 2nd ofbiz instance you have to increase the default port 1099 by
one.

Then you might probably want to enable the debug port...

Anyway - I think it's easier to maintain many instances if each one is
encapsulated on a single network virtual interface.

All the containers are able to be configured to do so but one:
NamingServiceContainer. So I created a patch to do so.
If you think it's useful - cool. If not - I'll probably use it on my
own :)

Cheers,
Deyan

On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 08:12 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote:

> The way I chose was to use ajp and change those ports. This makes
> updating from the SVN easier.
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/FAQ+-+Tips+-+Tricks+-+Cookbook+-+HowTo#FAQ-Tips-Tricks-Cookbook-HowTo-HTTPD
>
>
> Ashish Vijaywargiya sent the following on 5/25/2009 5:56 AM:
> > Below is my post dated May 21, 2009 on the user mailing list on the User
> > Mailing list.
> > I guess you have missed my reply.
> > Please read the details, give it a try and if got stuckup somewhere then
> > come back to discuss the things.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > Yes this can be easily done in OFBiz.
> >
> > Open ofbiz-containers.xml file.
> > (framework/base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml)
> > Change the value of port in all the property by name "port". For ex. you
> > can change http port from 8080 to 28080
> >
> > Then open url.property file. (framework/webapp/config/url.properties)
> > Keep the value of http & https port same as you set in the
> > ofbiz-containers.xml file.
> >
> > So now we have two instance of OFBiz server on the same machine.
> >
> > -- One is running on 8080 & another one is running on 28080 port.
> >
> > For accessing the same database you should keep the settings of database
> > same in entityengine.xml file.
> > This is all from my side.
> >
> > Now its your turn to give it a try and if got stuck up somewhere in b/w
> > then shoot an email on mailing list.
> > Thanks !
> >
>

Tim Ruppert

Re: Multiple OFBiz instances running on a single machine

We run loads of instances on the same servers - both in staging and in production - and have no problems. Even if you only have one host, you should be able to just change all of the ports and have no conflict. I'll look around to see if I can find the exact link to the way to make this happen - but it's basically taken right out of the docs (albeit somewhere :) ).

Cheers,
Tim
--
Tim Ruppert
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595

----- "Deyan Tsvetanov" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I will definitely use AJP for production ! That's out of question :)
>
> The problem is that you have only one localhost and only one 8009
> port can be bound. For the 2nd OFBiz instance you have to 8009++
> ( increase ) . But then you have the RMI port to take care of - if
> you
> start 2nd ofbiz instance you have to increase the default port 1099
> by
> one.
>
> Then you might probably want to enable the debug port...
>
> Anyway - I think it's easier to maintain many instances if each one
> is
> encapsulated on a single network virtual interface.
>
> All the containers are able to be configured to do so but one:
> NamingServiceContainer. So I created a patch to do so.
> If you think it's useful - cool. If not - I'll probably use it on my
> own :)
>
>
> Cheers,
> Deyan
>
> On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 08:12 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote:
> > The way I chose was to use ajp and change those ports. This makes
> > updating from the SVN easier.
> >
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/FAQ+-+Tips+-+Tricks+-+Cookbook+-+HowTo#FAQ-Tips-Tricks-Cookbook-HowTo-HTTPD
> >
> >
> > Ashish Vijaywargiya sent the following on 5/25/2009 5:56 AM:
> > > Below is my post dated May 21, 2009 on the user mailing list on
> the User
> > > Mailing list.
> > > I guess you have missed my reply.
> > > Please read the details, give it a try and if got stuckup
> somewhere then
> > > come back to discuss the things.
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Yes this can be easily done in OFBiz.
> > >
> > > Open ofbiz-containers.xml file.
> > > (framework/base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml)
> > > Change the value of port in all the property by name "port". For
> ex. you
> > > can change http port from 8080 to 28080
> > >
> > > Then open url.property file.
> (framework/webapp/config/url.properties)
> > > Keep the value of http & https port same as you set in the
> > > ofbiz-containers.xml file.
> > >
> > > So now we have two instance of OFBiz server on the same machine.
> > >
> > > -- One is running on 8080 & another one is running on 28080 port.
> > >
> > > For accessing the same database you should keep the settings of
> database
> > > same in entityengine.xml file.
> > > This is all from my side.
> > >
> > > Now its your turn to give it a try and if got stuck up somewhere
> in b/w
> > > then shoot an email on mailing list.
> > > Thanks !
> > >
> >

Deyan Tsvetanov

Re: Multiple OFBiz instances running on a single machine

Anyway: all the containers can be configured to bind on a specific
interface but the NamingServiceContainer.

This is the *ONLY* container that binds to all the available interface
and does not support configuration.

On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 11:23 -0500, Tim Ruppert wrote:

> We run loads of instances on the same servers - both in staging and in production - and have no problems. Even if you only have one host, you should be able to just change all of the ports and have no conflict. I'll look around to see if I can find the exact link to the way to make this happen - but it's basically taken right out of the docs (albeit somewhere :) ).
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
> --
> Tim Ruppert
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> o:801.649.6594
> f:801.649.6595
>
> ----- "Deyan Tsvetanov" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I will definitely use AJP for production ! That's out of question :)
> >
> > The problem is that you have only one localhost and only one 8009
> > port can be bound. For the 2nd OFBiz instance you have to 8009++
> > ( increase ) . But then you have the RMI port to take care of - if
> > you
> > start 2nd ofbiz instance you have to increase the default port 1099
> > by
> > one.
> >
> > Then you might probably want to enable the debug port...
> >
> > Anyway - I think it's easier to maintain many instances if each one
> > is
> > encapsulated on a single network virtual interface.
> >
> > All the containers are able to be configured to do so but one:
> > NamingServiceContainer. So I created a patch to do so.
> > If you think it's useful - cool. If not - I'll probably use it on my
> > own :)
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Deyan
> >
> > On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 08:12 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote:
> > > The way I chose was to use ajp and change those ports. This makes
> > > updating from the SVN easier.
> > >
> > http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/FAQ+-+Tips+-+Tricks+-+Cookbook+-+HowTo#FAQ-Tips-Tricks-Cookbook-HowTo-HTTPD
> > >
> > >
> > > Ashish Vijaywargiya sent the following on 5/25/2009 5:56 AM:
> > > > Below is my post dated May 21, 2009 on the user mailing list on
> > the User
> > > > Mailing list.
> > > > I guess you have missed my reply.
> > > > Please read the details, give it a try and if got stuckup
> > somewhere then
> > > > come back to discuss the things.
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Yes this can be easily done in OFBiz.
> > > >
> > > > Open ofbiz-containers.xml file.
> > > > (framework/base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml)
> > > > Change the value of port in all the property by name "port". For
> > ex. you
> > > > can change http port from 8080 to 28080
> > > >
> > > > Then open url.property file.
> > (framework/webapp/config/url.properties)
> > > > Keep the value of http & https port same as you set in the
> > > > ofbiz-containers.xml file.
> > > >
> > > > So now we have two instance of OFBiz server on the same machine.
> > > >
> > > > -- One is running on 8080 & another one is running on 28080 port.
> > > >
> > > > For accessing the same database you should keep the settings of
> > database
> > > > same in entityengine.xml file.
> > > > This is all from my side.
> > > >
> > > > Now its your turn to give it a try and if got stuck up somewhere
> > in b/w
> > > > then shoot an email on mailing list.
> > > > Thanks !
> > > >
> > >

Deyan Tsvetanov

Re: Multiple OFBiz instances running on a single machine

In reply to this post by BJ Freeman

Hi again,

I'm sorry for delaying the thread, I was pretty busy the last few
days ...

It happens :)

So back to the discussion:
As I mentioned *ALL* the containers can be configured which network
interfaces to bind to: ajp ( 8009 ), http ( 8080 ), https ( 8443 ), iiop
( 2000 ). The only container that does not support this type of
configuration is the NamingContainer
( OFBIZ_HOME/framework/base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml ) .

Why is it a pain for me ? Because I am running each OFBiz instance into
a different VLAN. Why ? Because I have configured VPN access for each
VLAN. And that's not the only reason. I would really like to know that
1099 is RMI, 8009 is AJP.

The only thing that breaks my VLAN schema is the NamingContainer, which
binds to *:1099 ( all the available interfaces ).

I provided a patch which fixes that injustice and brings everything to
order.

If you don't like it and think it's useless - it's ok with me - I'll
continue using the patched version. And I'll re-apply the patch every
time I update the sources from the SVN and get a conflict. For 1 patch
it's manageable. For 10 - it's still manageable. For 100 - it's
impossible. I'll just have to switch to some other product.

But that is actually opposing the open source theory, which says
"Everybody can contribute by writing code, sharing experience, business
knowhow, ideas and etc, etc, etc".

Now if you give me a reason ( or a list of reasons ) why the feature
I've proposed should not be accepted - I'll be glad with it and I'll
forget about it forever and ever.

I agree that it's a minor priority patch for you guys.
But the priority is slightly bigger for me.

What I have done so far was:

1) Identify the problem.
2) Propose a solution.
3) Initiate a discussion
4) Hope that the solution is accepted or a better one is proposed.

Currently we're on step 3) as my solution was not accepted and a better
one was not proposed.

So - I'm eager to move to step 4). The "change the 1099 port" workaround
is definitely not a better solution :)

Cheers,
Deyan

On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 08:12 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote:

Vince Clark

Re: Multiple OFBiz instances running on a single machine

Deyan

I'm curious to know why you are running multiple instances in this way. Have you considered virtualisation?

Vince Clark
[hidden email]
(303) 493-6723

----- Original Message -----
From: "Deyan Tsvetanov" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2009 9:58:41 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: Re: Multiple OFBiz instances running on a single machine

Hi again,

I'm sorry for delaying the thread, I was pretty busy the last few
days ...

It happens :)

So back to the discussion:
As I mentioned *ALL* the containers can be configured which network
interfaces to bind to: ajp ( 8009 ), http ( 8080 ), https ( 8443 ), iiop
( 2000 ). The only container that does not support this type of
configuration is the NamingContainer
( OFBIZ_HOME/framework/base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml ) .

Why is it a pain for me ? Because I am running each OFBiz instance into
a different VLAN. Why ? Because I have configured VPN access for each
VLAN. And that's not the only reason. I would really like to know that
1099 is RMI, 8009 is AJP.

The only thing that breaks my VLAN schema is the NamingContainer, which
binds to *:1099 ( all the available interfaces ).

I provided a patch which fixes that injustice and brings everything to
order.

If you don't like it and think it's useless - it's ok with me - I'll
continue using the patched version. And I'll re-apply the patch every
time I update the sources from the SVN and get a conflict. For 1 patch
it's manageable. For 10 - it's still manageable. For 100 - it's
impossible. I'll just have to switch to some other product.

But that is actually opposing the open source theory, which says
"Everybody can contribute by writing code, sharing experience, business
knowhow, ideas and etc, etc, etc".

Now if you give me a reason ( or a list of reasons ) why the feature
I've proposed should not be accepted - I'll be glad with it and I'll
forget about it forever and ever.

I agree that it's a minor priority patch for you guys.
But the priority is slightly bigger for me.

What I have done so far was:

1) Identify the problem.
2) Propose a solution.
3) Initiate a discussion
4) Hope that the solution is accepted or a better one is proposed.

Currently we're on step 3) as my solution was not accepted and a better
one was not proposed.

So - I'm eager to move to step 4). The "change the 1099 port" workaround
is definitely not a better solution :)

Cheers,
Deyan

On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 08:12 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote:

David E Jones-3

Re: Multiple OFBiz instances running on a single machine

In reply to this post by Deyan Tsvetanov

I must have missed something... where is the Jira issue for the patch
you submitted and who rejected it?

-David

On Jun 1, 2009, at 9:58 AM, Deyan Tsvetanov wrote:

> Hi again,
>
> I'm sorry for delaying the thread, I was pretty busy the last few
> days ...
>
> It happens :)
>
> So back to the discussion:
> As I mentioned *ALL* the containers can be configured which network
> interfaces to bind to: ajp ( 8009 ), http ( 8080 ), https ( 8443 ),
> iiop
> ( 2000 ). The only container that does not support this type of
> configuration is the NamingContainer
> ( OFBIZ_HOME/framework/base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml ) .
>
> Why is it a pain for me ? Because I am running each OFBiz instance
> into
> a different VLAN. Why ? Because I have configured VPN access for each
> VLAN. And that's not the only reason. I would really like to know that
> 1099 is RMI, 8009 is AJP.
>
> The only thing that breaks my VLAN schema is the NamingContainer,
> which
> binds to *:1099 ( all the available interfaces ).
>
> I provided a patch which fixes that injustice and brings everything to
> order.
>
> If you don't like it and think it's useless - it's ok with me - I'll
> continue using the patched version. And I'll re-apply the patch every
> time I update the sources from the SVN and get a conflict. For 1 patch
> it's manageable. For 10 - it's still manageable. For 100 - it's
> impossible. I'll just have to switch to some other product.
>
> But that is actually opposing the open source theory, which says
> "Everybody can contribute by writing code, sharing experience,
> business
> knowhow, ideas and etc, etc, etc".
>
> Now if you give me a reason ( or a list of reasons ) why the feature
> I've proposed should not be accepted - I'll be glad with it and I'll
> forget about it forever and ever.
>
> I agree that it's a minor priority patch for you guys.
> But the priority is slightly bigger for me.
>
> What I have done so far was:
>
> 1) Identify the problem.
> 2) Propose a solution.
> 3) Initiate a discussion
> 4) Hope that the solution is accepted or a better one is proposed.
>
> Currently we're on step 3) as my solution was not accepted and a
> better
> one was not proposed.
>
> So - I'm eager to move to step 4). The "change the 1099 port"
> workaround
> is definitely not a better solution :)
>
> Cheers,
> Deyan
>
>
> On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 08:12 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote:
>> The way I chose was to use ajp and change those ports. This makes
>> updating from the SVN easier.
>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/FAQ+-+Tips+-+Tricks+-+Cookbook+-+HowTo#FAQ-Tips-Tricks-Cookbook-HowTo-HTTPD
>>
>>
>> Ashish Vijaywargiya sent the following on 5/25/2009 5:56 AM:
>>> Below is my post dated May 21, 2009 on the user mailing list on
>>> the User
>>> Mailing list.
>>> I guess you have missed my reply.
>>> Please read the details, give it a try and if got stuckup
>>> somewhere then
>>> come back to discuss the things.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Yes this can be easily done in OFBiz.
>>>
>>> Open ofbiz-containers.xml file.
>>> (framework/base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml)
>>> Change the value of port in all the property by name "port". For
>>> ex. you
>>> can change http port from 8080 to 28080
>>>
>>> Then open url.property file. (framework/webapp/config/
>>> url.properties)
>>> Keep the value of http & https port same as you set in the
>>> ofbiz-containers.xml file.
>>>
>>> So now we have two instance of OFBiz server on the same machine.
>>>
>>> -- One is running on 8080 & another one is running on 28080 port.
>>>
>>> For accessing the same database you should keep the settings of
>>> database
>>> same in entityengine.xml file.
>>> This is all from my side.
>>>
>>> Now its your turn to give it a try and if got stuck up somewhere
>>> in b/w
>>> then shoot an email on mailing list.
>>> Thanks !
>>>
>>
>

Deyan Tsvetanov

Re: Multiple OFBiz instances running on a single machine

In reply to this post by Vince Clark

Hi Vince,

yes, I have considered virtualisation but I have concluded that I don't
really need virtualisation :)

I don't want to shoot flies with a gun for elephants ( a humble
interpretation attempt :)

I would have preferred virtualisation if I need
- OS process level isolation
- kernel level isolation
- file system level isolation
- if I ran software which does not support multiple instances because of
shared resources or something else.

Currently all I need is network level isolation. I want to give VPN
access to the customers so they can see *ONLY* their own OFBiz instance.
So if I start an OFBiz instance bound only ( for example ) to
192.168.1.1 then I will be able to create a VPN network 192.168.1.1/24.

The other way is to create a complex system of forwarded ports which is
a real pain in the a** to maintain.

-- deyan

On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 12:19 -0500, Vince Clark wrote:

> Deyan
>
> I'm curious to know why you are running multiple instances in this way. Have you considered virtualisation?
>
>
> Vince Clark
> [hidden email]
> (303) 493-6723
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Deyan Tsvetanov" <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2009 9:58:41 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
> Subject: Re: Multiple OFBiz instances running on a single machine
>
> Hi again,
>
> I'm sorry for delaying the thread, I was pretty busy the last few
> days ...
>
> It happens :)
>
> So back to the discussion:
> As I mentioned *ALL* the containers can be configured which network
> interfaces to bind to: ajp ( 8009 ), http ( 8080 ), https ( 8443 ), iiop
> ( 2000 ). The only container that does not support this type of
> configuration is the NamingContainer
> ( OFBIZ_HOME/framework/base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml ) .
>
> Why is it a pain for me ? Because I am running each OFBiz instance into
> a different VLAN. Why ? Because I have configured VPN access for each
> VLAN. And that's not the only reason. I would really like to know that
> 1099 is RMI, 8009 is AJP.
>
> The only thing that breaks my VLAN schema is the NamingContainer, which
> binds to *:1099 ( all the available interfaces ).
>
> I provided a patch which fixes that injustice and brings everything to
> order.
>
> If you don't like it and think it's useless - it's ok with me - I'll
> continue using the patched version. And I'll re-apply the patch every
> time I update the sources from the SVN and get a conflict. For 1 patch
> it's manageable. For 10 - it's still manageable. For 100 - it's
> impossible. I'll just have to switch to some other product.
>
> But that is actually opposing the open source theory, which says
> "Everybody can contribute by writing code, sharing experience, business
> knowhow, ideas and etc, etc, etc".
>
> Now if you give me a reason ( or a list of reasons ) why the feature
> I've proposed should not be accepted - I'll be glad with it and I'll
> forget about it forever and ever.
>
> I agree that it's a minor priority patch for you guys.
> But the priority is slightly bigger for me.
>
> What I have done so far was:
>
> 1) Identify the problem.
> 2) Propose a solution.
> 3) Initiate a discussion
> 4) Hope that the solution is accepted or a better one is proposed.
>
> Currently we're on step 3) as my solution was not accepted and a better
> one was not proposed.
>
> So - I'm eager to move to step 4). The "change the 1099 port" workaround
> is definitely not a better solution :)
>
> Cheers,
> Deyan
>
>
> On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 08:12 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote:
> > The way I chose was to use ajp and change those ports. This makes
> > updating from the SVN easier.
> > http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/FAQ+-+Tips+-+Tricks+-+Cookbook+-+HowTo#FAQ-Tips-Tricks-Cookbook-HowTo-HTTPD
> >
> >
> > Ashish Vijaywargiya sent the following on 5/25/2009 5:56 AM:
> > > Below is my post dated May 21, 2009 on the user mailing list on the User
> > > Mailing list.
> > > I guess you have missed my reply.
> > > Please read the details, give it a try and if got stuckup somewhere then
> > > come back to discuss the things.
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Yes this can be easily done in OFBiz.
> > >
> > > Open ofbiz-containers.xml file.
> > > (framework/base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml)
> > > Change the value of port in all the property by name "port". For ex. you
> > > can change http port from 8080 to 28080
> > >
> > > Then open url.property file. (framework/webapp/config/url.properties)
> > > Keep the value of http & https port same as you set in the
> > > ofbiz-containers.xml file.
> > >
> > > So now we have two instance of OFBiz server on the same machine.
> > >
> > > -- One is running on 8080 & another one is running on 28080 port.
> > >
> > > For accessing the same database you should keep the settings of database
> > > same in entityengine.xml file.
> > > This is all from my side.
> > >
> > > Now its your turn to give it a try and if got stuck up somewhere in b/w
> > > then shoot an email on mailing list.
> > > Thanks !
> > >
> >
>

Deyan Tsvetanov

Re: Multiple OFBiz instances running on a single machine

In reply to this post by David E Jones-3

Hi David,

I never said the patch was rejected :)
I wanted to initiate a discussion first in order recognize the problem.

Anyway - here is the newly created jira issue -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2559

Cheers,
Deyan

On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 18:34 -0600, David E Jones wrote:

> I must have missed something... where is the Jira issue for the patch
> you submitted and who rejected it?
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2009, at 9:58 AM, Deyan Tsvetanov wrote:
>
> > Hi again,
> >
> > I'm sorry for delaying the thread, I was pretty busy the last few
> > days ...
> >
> > It happens :)
> >
> > So back to the discussion:
> > As I mentioned *ALL* the containers can be configured which network
> > interfaces to bind to: ajp ( 8009 ), http ( 8080 ), https ( 8443 ),
> > iiop
> > ( 2000 ). The only container that does not support this type of
> > configuration is the NamingContainer
> > ( OFBIZ_HOME/framework/base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml ) .
> >
> > Why is it a pain for me ? Because I am running each OFBiz instance
> > into
> > a different VLAN. Why ? Because I have configured VPN access for each
> > VLAN. And that's not the only reason. I would really like to know that
> > 1099 is RMI, 8009 is AJP.
> >
> > The only thing that breaks my VLAN schema is the NamingContainer,
> > which
> > binds to *:1099 ( all the available interfaces ).
> >
> > I provided a patch which fixes that injustice and brings everything to
> > order.
> >
> > If you don't like it and think it's useless - it's ok with me - I'll
> > continue using the patched version. And I'll re-apply the patch every
> > time I update the sources from the SVN and get a conflict. For 1 patch
> > it's manageable. For 10 - it's still manageable. For 100 - it's
> > impossible. I'll just have to switch to some other product.
> >
> > But that is actually opposing the open source theory, which says
> > "Everybody can contribute by writing code, sharing experience,
> > business
> > knowhow, ideas and etc, etc, etc".
> >
> > Now if you give me a reason ( or a list of reasons ) why the feature
> > I've proposed should not be accepted - I'll be glad with it and I'll
> > forget about it forever and ever.
> >
> > I agree that it's a minor priority patch for you guys.
> > But the priority is slightly bigger for me.
> >
> > What I have done so far was:
> >
> > 1) Identify the problem.
> > 2) Propose a solution.
> > 3) Initiate a discussion
> > 4) Hope that the solution is accepted or a better one is proposed.
> >
> > Currently we're on step 3) as my solution was not accepted and a
> > better
> > one was not proposed.
> >
> > So - I'm eager to move to step 4). The "change the 1099 port"
> > workaround
> > is definitely not a better solution :)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Deyan
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 08:12 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote:
> >> The way I chose was to use ajp and change those ports. This makes
> >> updating from the SVN easier.
> >> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/FAQ+-+Tips+-+Tricks+-+Cookbook+-+HowTo#FAQ-Tips-Tricks-Cookbook-HowTo-HTTPD
> >>
> >>
> >> Ashish Vijaywargiya sent the following on 5/25/2009 5:56 AM:
> >>> Below is my post dated May 21, 2009 on the user mailing list on
> >>> the User
> >>> Mailing list.
> >>> I guess you have missed my reply.
> >>> Please read the details, give it a try and if got stuckup
> >>> somewhere then
> >>> come back to discuss the things.
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> Yes this can be easily done in OFBiz.
> >>>
> >>> Open ofbiz-containers.xml file.
> >>> (framework/base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml)
> >>> Change the value of port in all the property by name "port". For
> >>> ex. you
> >>> can change http port from 8080 to 28080
> >>>
> >>> Then open url.property file. (framework/webapp/config/
> >>> url.properties)
> >>> Keep the value of http & https port same as you set in the
> >>> ofbiz-containers.xml file.
> >>>
> >>> So now we have two instance of OFBiz server on the same machine.
> >>>
> >>> -- One is running on 8080 & another one is running on 28080 port.
> >>>
> >>> For accessing the same database you should keep the settings of
> >>> database
> >>> same in entityengine.xml file.
> >>> This is all from my side.
> >>>
> >>> Now its your turn to give it a try and if got stuck up somewhere
> >>> in b/w
> >>> then shoot an email on mailing list.
> >>> Thanks !
> >>>
> >>
> >
>

Jacques Le Roux

Re: Multiple OFBiz instances running on a single machine

Administrator

In reply to this post by David E Jones-3

A link can't hurt
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Contributors+Best+Practices

Jacques

From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>

>
> I must have missed something... where is the Jira issue for the patch
> you submitted and who rejected it?
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2009, at 9:58 AM, Deyan Tsvetanov wrote:
>
>> Hi again,
>>
>> I'm sorry for delaying the thread, I was pretty busy the last few
>> days ...
>>
>> It happens :)
>>
>> So back to the discussion:
>> As I mentioned *ALL* the containers can be configured which network
>> interfaces to bind to: ajp ( 8009 ), http ( 8080 ), https ( 8443 ),
>> iiop
>> ( 2000 ). The only container that does not support this type of
>> configuration is the NamingContainer
>> ( OFBIZ_HOME/framework/base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml ) .
>>
>> Why is it a pain for me ? Because I am running each OFBiz instance
>> into
>> a different VLAN. Why ? Because I have configured VPN access for each
>> VLAN. And that's not the only reason. I would really like to know that
>> 1099 is RMI, 8009 is AJP.
>>
>> The only thing that breaks my VLAN schema is the NamingContainer,
>> which
>> binds to *:1099 ( all the available interfaces ).
>>
>> I provided a patch which fixes that injustice and brings everything to
>> order.
>>
>> If you don't like it and think it's useless - it's ok with me - I'll
>> continue using the patched version. And I'll re-apply the patch every
>> time I update the sources from the SVN and get a conflict. For 1 patch
>> it's manageable. For 10 - it's still manageable. For 100 - it's
>> impossible. I'll just have to switch to some other product.
>>
>> But that is actually opposing the open source theory, which says
>> "Everybody can contribute by writing code, sharing experience,
>> business
>> knowhow, ideas and etc, etc, etc".
>>
>> Now if you give me a reason ( or a list of reasons ) why the feature
>> I've proposed should not be accepted - I'll be glad with it and I'll
>> forget about it forever and ever.
>>
>> I agree that it's a minor priority patch for you guys.
>> But the priority is slightly bigger for me.
>>
>> What I have done so far was:
>>
>> 1) Identify the problem.
>> 2) Propose a solution.
>> 3) Initiate a discussion
>> 4) Hope that the solution is accepted or a better one is proposed.
>>
>> Currently we're on step 3) as my solution was not accepted and a
>> better
>> one was not proposed.
>>
>> So - I'm eager to move to step 4). The "change the 1099 port"
>> workaround
>> is definitely not a better solution :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Deyan
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 08:12 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>> The way I chose was to use ajp and change those ports. This makes
>>> updating from the SVN easier.
>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/FAQ+-+Tips+-+Tricks+-+Cookbook+-+HowTo#FAQ-Tips-Tricks-Cookbook-HowTo-HTTPD
>>>
>>>
>>> Ashish Vijaywargiya sent the following on 5/25/2009 5:56 AM:
>>>> Below is my post dated May 21, 2009 on the user mailing list on
>>>> the User
>>>> Mailing list.
>>>> I guess you have missed my reply.
>>>> Please read the details, give it a try and if got stuckup
>>>> somewhere then
>>>> come back to discuss the things.
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Yes this can be easily done in OFBiz.
>>>>
>>>> Open ofbiz-containers.xml file.
>>>> (framework/base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml)
>>>> Change the value of port in all the property by name "port". For
>>>> ex. you
>>>> can change http port from 8080 to 28080
>>>>
>>>> Then open url.property file. (framework/webapp/config/
>>>> url.properties)
>>>> Keep the value of http & https port same as you set in the
>>>> ofbiz-containers.xml file.
>>>>
>>>> So now we have two instance of OFBiz server on the same machine.
>>>>
>>>> -- One is running on 8080 & another one is running on 28080 port.
>>>>
>>>> For accessing the same database you should keep the settings of
>>>> database
>>>> same in entityengine.xml file.
>>>> This is all from my side.
>>>>
>>>> Now its your turn to give it a try and if got stuck up somewhere
>>>> in b/w
>>>> then shoot an email on mailing list.
>>>> Thanks !
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Tim Ruppert

Re: Multiple OFBiz instances running on a single machine

In reply to this post by Deyan Tsvetanov

I have to admit to not being the biggest fan of virtualization myself for just about the same reasons (not that I think I'm right - just that I've been burned before, so I stay away from that hot flame!). We maintain as many as 30 OFBiz instances on our staging server (not all on at the same time :) ) and do the same in production, without virtualization, for many of those same servers. I don't think it's a pain in the ass, it's only a thorough understanding of how you bind instances to domain names and ports - which is super common for OFBiz applications.

Sure you need to keep up on your patch files (one per instance should be plenty) - but that's just part of being part of the community and shouldn't be a gigantic deal since you're already showing a propensity to stay active. I can't remember exactly where the documentation file is that documents all of the ports - but I know it's done in relatively good detail and lays out the process pretty clearly.

Anyways, if this is something that you don't want to do yourself, but have your host do, you could also look into Contegix as a hosting provider - they've got this all dialed and you personally wouldn't have to do much of it. Just a thought. Good luck on your hunt and looking forward to hearing when you've gotten it all squared away for you and your customers.

Cheers,
Tim
--
Tim Ruppert
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595

----- "Deyan Tsvetanov" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Vince,
>
> yes, I have considered virtualisation but I have concluded that I
> don't
> really need virtualisation :)
>
> I don't want to shoot flies with a gun for elephants ( a humble
> interpretation attempt :)
>
> I would have preferred virtualisation if I need
> - OS process level isolation
> - kernel level isolation
> - file system level isolation
> - if I ran software which does not support multiple instances because
> of
> shared resources or something else.
>
> Currently all I need is network level isolation. I want to give VPN
> access to the customers so they can see *ONLY* their own OFBiz
> instance.
> So if I start an OFBiz instance bound only ( for example ) to
> 192.168.1.1 then I will be able to create a VPN network
> 192.168.1.1/24.
>
> The other way is to create a complex system of forwarded ports which
> is
> a real pain in the a** to maintain.
>
> -- deyan
>
> On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 12:19 -0500, Vince Clark wrote:
> > Deyan
> >
> > I'm curious to know why you are running multiple instances in this
> way. Have you considered virtualisation?
> >
> >
> > Vince Clark
> > [hidden email]
> > (303) 493-6723
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Deyan Tsvetanov" <[hidden email]>
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Sent: Monday, June 1, 2009 9:58:41 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
> > Subject: Re: Multiple OFBiz instances running on a single machine
> >
> > Hi again,
> >
> > I'm sorry for delaying the thread, I was pretty busy the last few
> > days ...
> >
> > It happens :)
> >
> > So back to the discussion:
> > As I mentioned *ALL* the containers can be configured which network
> > interfaces to bind to: ajp ( 8009 ), http ( 8080 ), https ( 8443 ),
> iiop
> > ( 2000 ). The only container that does not support this type of
> > configuration is the NamingContainer
> > ( OFBIZ_HOME/framework/base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml ) .
> >
> > Why is it a pain for me ? Because I am running each OFBiz instance
> into
> > a different VLAN. Why ? Because I have configured VPN access for
> each
> > VLAN. And that's not the only reason. I would really like to know
> that
> > 1099 is RMI, 8009 is AJP.
> >
> > The only thing that breaks my VLAN schema is the NamingContainer,
> which
> > binds to *:1099 ( all the available interfaces ).
> >
> > I provided a patch which fixes that injustice and brings everything
> to
> > order.
> >
> > If you don't like it and think it's useless - it's ok with me -
> I'll
> > continue using the patched version. And I'll re-apply the patch
> every
> > time I update the sources from the SVN and get a conflict. For 1
> patch
> > it's manageable. For 10 - it's still manageable. For 100 - it's
> > impossible. I'll just have to switch to some other product.
> >
> > But that is actually opposing the open source theory, which says
> > "Everybody can contribute by writing code, sharing experience,
> business
> > knowhow, ideas and etc, etc, etc".
> >
> > Now if you give me a reason ( or a list of reasons ) why the
> feature
> > I've proposed should not be accepted - I'll be glad with it and
> I'll
> > forget about it forever and ever.
> >
> > I agree that it's a minor priority patch for you guys.
> > But the priority is slightly bigger for me.
> >
> > What I have done so far was:
> >
> > 1) Identify the problem.
> > 2) Propose a solution.
> > 3) Initiate a discussion
> > 4) Hope that the solution is accepted or a better one is proposed.
> >
> > Currently we're on step 3) as my solution was not accepted and a
> better
> > one was not proposed.
> >
> > So - I'm eager to move to step 4). The "change the 1099 port"
> workaround
> > is definitely not a better solution :)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Deyan
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 08:12 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote:
> > > The way I chose was to use ajp and change those ports. This makes
> > > updating from the SVN easier.
> > >
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/FAQ+-+Tips+-+Tricks+-+Cookbook+-+HowTo#FAQ-Tips-Tricks-Cookbook-HowTo-HTTPD
> > >
> > >
> > > Ashish Vijaywargiya sent the following on 5/25/2009 5:56 AM:
> > > > Below is my post dated May 21, 2009 on the user mailing list on
> the User
> > > > Mailing list.
> > > > I guess you have missed my reply.
> > > > Please read the details, give it a try and if got stuckup
> somewhere then
> > > > come back to discuss the things.
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Yes this can be easily done in OFBiz.
> > > >
> > > > Open ofbiz-containers.xml file.
> > > > (framework/base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml)
> > > > Change the value of port in all the property by name "port". For
> ex. you
> > > > can change http port from 8080 to 28080
> > > >
> > > > Then open url.property file.
> (framework/webapp/config/url.properties)
> > > > Keep the value of http & https port same as you set in the
> > > > ofbiz-containers.xml file.
> > > >
> > > > So now we have two instance of OFBiz server on the same
> machine.
> > > >
> > > > -- One is running on 8080 & another one is running on 28080
> port.
> > > >
> > > > For accessing the same database you should keep the settings of
> database
> > > > same in entityengine.xml file.
> > > > This is all from my side.
> > > >
> > > > Now its your turn to give it a try and if got stuck up somewhere
> in b/w
> > > > then shoot an email on mailing list.
> > > > Thanks !
> > > >
> > >
> >