OFBiz › OFBiz - Dev

Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz?

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

14 messages Options

Jacques Le Roux

Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz?

Administrator

Hi,

The multi-tenants feature in OFBiz only allows a dozens or maybe even few hundreds tenants, after it begin to be a lot of DBs!
I faced that with a startup which wanted to handle thousands, if not millions (actually they failed), of tenants, obviously OFBiz can't do that.

I don't break any secret to say that I was working with David (and Andrew) on a project in 2010 when David had to quickly answer to the client's
demand who wanted to have tenants. David brilliantly and quickly delivered, but it was only a start.

After many improvements, this feature still have some issues
     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6066
     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7900
     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6164
     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6065

Also this is somehow related
     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6712

And most importantly
     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7112
     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7754

I recently read this article

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/architecture-constraints-end-multi-tenancy-gregor-hohpe/

and, after my experiences with multi-tenant as is in OFBiz, it made me wonder if we should not think about how it's done now in OFBiz in 2018 with the
clouds being everywhere!

Before sending this email, I quickly exchanged with David about how Moqui handles that now. And we are on the same page, see

https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4640689/4640689-6180851287941201924

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41952818/does-moqui-framework-2-0-still-support-mutli-tenency?rq=1 [1]

[1] Initially David gave me this link

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/multi-instance-moqui-docker-david-e-jones/

but it seems LinkedIn has lost it, as said in the stackoverflow comment.

So IMO why not deprecating the multi-tenants as is now and rather push a multi-instances way?

Opinions?

Jacques

taher

Re: Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz?

Multi-tenancy complicates things, and the code could be made simpler
by removing it in many areas of the system. So technically, I'm for
that.

However, the issue here is whether enough people depend on it. I saw
multiple questions in the mailing list in the past about multi-tenancy
in the past, so I'm just not sure if people depend on it or not. Maybe
shooting that question in the user ML would help shed some perspective
on it?

With our appreciation for all the good work people are doing in their
projects, I think we should be focused on OFBiz and what is best for
_this_ project. If some project decides to drop multi-tenancy I don't
think we should be influenced or automatically follow suit. So naming
who-did-what might not important for this discussion and we need to
bake our own bread.
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:45 PM Jacques Le Roux
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> The multi-tenants feature in OFBiz only allows a dozens or maybe even few hundreds tenants, after it begin to be a lot of DBs!
> I faced that with a startup which wanted to handle thousands, if not millions (actually they failed), of tenants, obviously OFBiz can't do that.
>
> I don't break any secret to say that I was working with David (and Andrew) on a project in 2010 when David had to quickly answer to the client's
> demand who wanted to have tenants. David brilliantly and quickly delivered, but it was only a start.
>
> After many improvements, this feature still have some issues
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6066
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7900
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6164
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6065
>
> Also this is somehow related
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6712
>
> And most importantly
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7112
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7754
>
> I recently read this article
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/architecture-constraints-end-multi-tenancy-gregor-hohpe/
>
> and, after my experiences with multi-tenant as is in OFBiz, it made me wonder if we should not think about how it's done now in OFBiz in 2018 with the
> clouds being everywhere!
>
> Before sending this email, I quickly exchanged with David about how Moqui handles that now. And we are on the same page, see
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4640689/4640689-6180851287941201924
>
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41952818/does-moqui-framework-2-0-still-support-mutli-tenency?rq=1 [1]
>
> [1] Initially David gave me this link
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/multi-instance-moqui-docker-david-e-jones/
>
> but it seems LinkedIn has lost it, as said in the stackoverflow comment.
>
> So IMO why not deprecating the multi-tenants as is now and rather push a multi-instances way?
>
> Opinions?
>
> Jacques
>

Jacques Le Roux

Re: Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz?

Administrator

Yes you are right, I'll start a discussion on user ML.

I already know that Pierre Smits uses it for his own projects, and indeed we know there are more people using it.

This said it should not prevent us to deprecate it and users to continue to use it based on R17 branch.

They could then switch later to the replacing feature. If we do so, we should try to deliver a migration tool, maybe with their interested help...

At the end it's the dev community to decide, we can get blocked by our users, notably because there are issues pending for too long, w/o much interest.

Let's see on user ML

Jacques

Le 29/08/2018 à 12:05, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :

> Multi-tenancy complicates things, and the code could be made simpler
> by removing it in many areas of the system. So technically, I'm for
> that.
>
> However, the issue here is whether enough people depend on it. I saw
> multiple questions in the mailing list in the past about multi-tenancy
> in the past, so I'm just not sure if people depend on it or not. Maybe
> shooting that question in the user ML would help shed some perspective
> on it?
>
> With our appreciation for all the good work people are doing in their
> projects, I think we should be focused on OFBiz and what is best for
> _this_ project. If some project decides to drop multi-tenancy I don't
> think we should be influenced or automatically follow suit. So naming
> who-did-what might not important for this discussion and we need to
> bake our own bread.
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:45 PM Jacques Le Roux
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The multi-tenants feature in OFBiz only allows a dozens or maybe even few hundreds tenants, after it begin to be a lot of DBs!
>> I faced that with a startup which wanted to handle thousands, if not millions (actually they failed), of tenants, obviously OFBiz can't do that.
>>
>> I don't break any secret to say that I was working with David (and Andrew) on a project in 2010 when David had to quickly answer to the client's
>> demand who wanted to have tenants. David brilliantly and quickly delivered, but it was only a start.
>>
>> After many improvements, this feature still have some issues
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6066
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7900
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6164
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6065
>>
>> Also this is somehow related
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6712
>>
>> And most importantly
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7112
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7754
>>
>> I recently read this article
>>
>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/architecture-constraints-end-multi-tenancy-gregor-hohpe/
>>
>> and, after my experiences with multi-tenant as is in OFBiz, it made me wonder if we should not think about how it's done now in OFBiz in 2018 with the
>> clouds being everywhere!
>>
>> Before sending this email, I quickly exchanged with David about how Moqui handles that now. And we are on the same page, see
>>
>> https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4640689/4640689-6180851287941201924
>>
>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41952818/does-moqui-framework-2-0-still-support-mutli-tenency?rq=1 [1]
>>
>> [1] Initially David gave me this link
>>
>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/multi-instance-moqui-docker-david-e-jones/
>>
>> but it seems LinkedIn has lost it, as said in the stackoverflow comment.
>>
>> So IMO why not deprecating the multi-tenants as is now and rather push a multi-instances way?
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>> Jacques
>>

Michael Brohl-3

Re: Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz?

Before we deprecate this feature (if ever) we should provide a well
designed, fully tested and established alternative as well as a
migration path and good documentation.

I propose to do any work on this in another branch to prevent any
distraction in trunk until this change is fully established. I assume
that this is going to be a longer task...

Regards,

Michael

Am 29.08.18 um 12:36 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:

> Yes you are right, I'll start a discussion on user ML.
>
> I already know that Pierre Smits uses it for his own projects, and
> indeed we know there are more people using it.
>
> This said it should not prevent us to deprecate it and users to
> continue to use it based on R17 branch.
>
> They could then switch later to the replacing feature. If we do so, we
> should try to deliver a migration tool, maybe with their interested
> help...
>
> At the end it's the dev community to decide, we can get blocked by our
> users, notably because there are issues pending for too long, w/o much
> interest.
>
> Let's see on user ML
>
> Jacques
>
>
> Le 29/08/2018 à 12:05, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
>> Multi-tenancy complicates things, and the code could be made simpler
>> by removing it in many areas of the system. So technically, I'm for
>> that.
>>
>> However, the issue here is whether enough people depend on it. I saw
>> multiple questions in the mailing list in the past about multi-tenancy
>> in the past, so I'm just not sure if people depend on it or not. Maybe
>> shooting that question in the user ML would help shed some perspective
>> on it?
>>
>> With our appreciation for all the good work people are doing in their
>> projects, I think we should be focused on OFBiz and what is best for
>> _this_ project. If some project decides to drop multi-tenancy I don't
>> think we should be influenced or automatically follow suit. So naming
>> who-did-what might not important for this discussion and we need to
>> bake our own bread.
>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:45 PM Jacques Le Roux
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The multi-tenants feature in OFBiz only allows a dozens or maybe
>>> even few hundreds tenants, after it begin to be a lot of DBs!
>>> I faced that with a startup which wanted to handle thousands, if not
>>> millions (actually they failed), of tenants, obviously OFBiz can't
>>> do that.
>>>
>>> I don't break any secret to say that I was working with David (and
>>> Andrew) on a project in 2010 when David had to quickly answer to the
>>> client's
>>> demand who wanted to have tenants. David brilliantly and quickly
>>> delivered, but it was only a start.
>>>
>>> After many improvements, this feature still have some issues
>>>       https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6066
>>>       https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7900
>>>       https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6164
>>>       https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6065
>>>
>>> Also this is somehow related
>>>       https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6712
>>>
>>> And most importantly
>>>       https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7112
>>>       https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7754
>>>
>>> I recently read this article
>>>
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/architecture-constraints-end-multi-tenancy-gregor-hohpe/
>>>
>>>
>>> and, after my experiences with multi-tenant as is in OFBiz, it made
>>> me wonder if we should not think about how it's done now in OFBiz in
>>> 2018 with the
>>> clouds being everywhere!
>>>
>>> Before sending this email, I quickly exchanged with David about how
>>> Moqui handles that now. And we are on the same page, see
>>>
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4640689/4640689-6180851287941201924
>>>
>>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41952818/does-moqui-framework-2-0-still-support-mutli-tenency?rq=1
>>> [1]
>>>
>>> [1] Initially David gave me this link
>>>
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/multi-instance-moqui-docker-david-e-jones/
>>>
>>>
>>> but it seems LinkedIn has lost it, as said in the stackoverflow
>>> comment.
>>>
>>> So IMO why not deprecating the multi-tenants as is now and rather
>>> push a multi-instances way?
>>>
>>> Opinions?
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>

smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment

Jacques Le Roux

Re: Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz?

Administrator

In reply to this post by taher

Le 29/08/2018 à 12:05, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
> If some project decides to drop multi-tenancy I don't
> think we should be influenced or automatically follow suit. So naming
> who-did-what might not important for this discussion and we need to
> bake our own bread.
I was not influenced by David's decision on multi-tenants for Moqui. It only confirms what I was wondering about.
Actually it was only after asking David for his permission to talk about the work we did together in 2010 that it occurred to me that Moqui is now
using the multi-instances way. I did not know.
It was after reading the LinkedIn article I re-tweeted few weeks ago [1], that I began to think about the situation, though it's a long time I'm
worried about it, as the Jira references I used show.
[1] https://twitter.com/ghohpe/status/1026179522562011137

And to complete my previous answer, we indeed need to care, because it's an important (architectural) decision.

Jacques

Arun Patidar-3

Re: Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz?

In reply to this post by Jacques Le Roux

+1 Taher for checking the dependencies of OFBiz users on tenant feature.

As both the options create multiple numbers of databases. Before
deprecating/removing multi-tenancy, we should check all the pros and cons
of the Multi-instance option as an alternate in OFBiz.
We will not want to add another feature with similar or other limitations.
At a time any one of the features should exist in OFBiz instead of adding
backward compatibility. This may make the code more complex.

IMO, existing tenant issues are not critical or blocker.

Kind Regards,

Arun Patidar
Director of Information Systems

*HotWax CommerceReal OmniChannel. Real Results.*
m: +91 9827353082
w: www.hotwax.c <http://www.hotwax.co/>o <[hidden email]>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/hotwaxcommerce/>
<https://www.facebook.com/HotWaxCommerce/>
<https://twitter.com/hotwaxcommerce>

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 4:06 PM Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yes you are right, I'll start a discussion on user ML.
>
> I already know that Pierre Smits uses it for his own projects, and indeed
> we know there are more people using it.
>
> This said it should not prevent us to deprecate it and users to continue
> to use it based on R17 branch.
>
> They could then switch later to the replacing feature. If we do so, we
> should try to deliver a migration tool, maybe with their interested help...
>
> At the end it's the dev community to decide, we can get blocked by our
> users, notably because there are issues pending for too long, w/o much
> interest.
>
> Let's see on user ML
>
> Jacques
>
>
> Le 29/08/2018 à 12:05, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
> > Multi-tenancy complicates things, and the code could be made simpler
> > by removing it in many areas of the system. So technically, I'm for
> > that.
> >
> > However, the issue here is whether enough people depend on it. I saw
> > multiple questions in the mailing list in the past about multi-tenancy
> > in the past, so I'm just not sure if people depend on it or not. Maybe
> > shooting that question in the user ML would help shed some perspective
> > on it?
> >
> > With our appreciation for all the good work people are doing in their
> > projects, I think we should be focused on OFBiz and what is best for
> > _this_ project. If some project decides to drop multi-tenancy I don't
> > think we should be influenced or automatically follow suit. So naming
> > who-did-what might not important for this discussion and we need to
> > bake our own bread.
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:45 PM Jacques Le Roux
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> The multi-tenants feature in OFBiz only allows a dozens or maybe even
> few hundreds tenants, after it begin to be a lot of DBs!
> >> I faced that with a startup which wanted to handle thousands, if not
> millions (actually they failed), of tenants, obviously OFBiz can't do that.
> >>
> >> I don't break any secret to say that I was working with David (and
> Andrew) on a project in 2010 when David had to quickly answer to the
> client's
> >> demand who wanted to have tenants. David brilliantly and quickly
> delivered, but it was only a start.
> >>
> >> After many improvements, this feature still have some issues
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6066
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7900
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6164
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6065
> >>
> >> Also this is somehow related
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6712
> >>
> >> And most importantly
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7112
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7754
> >>
> >> I recently read this article
> >>
> >>
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/architecture-constraints-end-multi-tenancy-gregor-hohpe/
> >>
> >> and, after my experiences with multi-tenant as is in OFBiz, it made me
> wonder if we should not think about how it's done now in OFBiz in 2018 with
> the
> >> clouds being everywhere!
> >>
> >> Before sending this email, I quickly exchanged with David about how
> Moqui handles that now. And we are on the same page, see
> >>
> >> https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4640689/4640689-6180851287941201924
> >>
> >>
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41952818/does-moqui-framework-2-0-still-support-mutli-tenency?rq=1
> [1]
> >>
> >> [1] Initially David gave me this link
> >>
> >>
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/multi-instance-moqui-docker-david-e-jones/
> >>
> >> but it seems LinkedIn has lost it, as said in the stackoverflow comment.
> >>
> >> So IMO why not deprecating the multi-tenants as is now and rather push
> a multi-instances way?
> >>
> >> Opinions?
> >>
> >> Jacques
> >>
>
>

Shi Jinghai-3

Re: Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz?

In reply to this post by Jacques Le Roux

Hi Jacques,

Honestly I was shocked by this email, I'm working on deploying OFBiz in Kubernetes, are you monitoring me?

In 2010, Kubernetes was quite new and not good enough, now it's the standard on cloud deploy management, and we can support it.

Before doing that, we have to answer some common questions in cloud running lifecycle, such as how may instances/requests can share one CPU, how to deliver(create) an instance, how to isolate an instance, how to offline, how to remove, how to online again and etc.

Personally I don't think we have to remove current multi-tenants implements, add a SAAS implement would be OK.

Kind Regards,

Shi Jinghai

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:[hidden email]]
发送时间: 2018年8月29日 17:46
收件人: [hidden email]
主题: Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz?

Hi,

The multi-tenants feature in OFBiz only allows a dozens or maybe even few hundreds tenants, after it begin to be a lot of DBs!
I faced that with a startup which wanted to handle thousands, if not millions (actually they failed), of tenants, obviously OFBiz can't do that.

I don't break any secret to say that I was working with David (and Andrew) on a project in 2010 when David had to quickly answer to the client's
demand who wanted to have tenants. David brilliantly and quickly delivered, but it was only a start.

After many improvements, this feature still have some issues
     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6066
     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7900
     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6164
     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6065

Also this is somehow related
     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6712

And most importantly
     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7112
     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7754

I recently read this article

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/architecture-constraints-end-multi-tenancy-gregor-hohpe/

and, after my experiences with multi-tenant as is in OFBiz, it made me wonder if we should not think about how it's done now in OFBiz in 2018 with the
clouds being everywhere!

Before sending this email, I quickly exchanged with David about how Moqui handles that now. And we are on the same page, see

https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4640689/4640689-6180851287941201924

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41952818/does-moqui-framework-2-0-still-support-mutli-tenency?rq=1 [1]

[1] Initially David gave me this link

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/multi-instance-moqui-docker-david-e-jones/

but it seems LinkedIn has lost it, as said in the stackoverflow comment.

So IMO why not deprecating the multi-tenants as is now and rather push a multi-instances way?

Opinions?

Jacques

Rajesh Mallah

Re: Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz?

Hi ,

I strongly feel we should.

For me, multi-tenency is the key feature in supporting more number of
organisations
with a single instance of Java/tomcat. Think of running 20 under-utilized
OFBiz instances
each *locking* up say 1GB ram versus 1 multi-tenant OFBiz instance
allocated with a
copious amount of RAM say 4-8GB ram.

a dozens or maybe even few hundreds tenants, after it begin to be a lot of
> DBs!
>

I would want to understand for whom does it becomes a *lot* of DB ?
In case it is about persistent connections to 100s' of distinct uris (ie.
host+user+db combination)
from the JDBC pool, we can offload the connection pooling feature to an
external
pooler , (eg: pgpool or pgbouncer , in case of postgreSQL) , and convert
the connection
mode from persistent to non-persistent at the tomcat level . So a *new*
connection is made
on a HTTP request and disconnected as soon as the request is served.
in oracle we have:
https://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/appdev.111/b28395/oci09adv.htm#LNOCI87721
in postgreSQL:
https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/56559/postgresql-high-availability-scalability-using-haproxy-and-pgbouncer
In case it is the sheer number of db connections i feel users can come up
with their own
architectures suiting their environment.

(disclaimer: I am not expert in tomcat but i am trying to draw parallels
with other application servers)

And its not only a matter of resource sharing only, deploying a new client
on a multi tenant OFBiz
instance is 10 times simpler than creating a new instance and configuring a
new OFBiz instance
itself ( discounting the factor or chef/puppet /salt/ansible/your favorite
automation tool) .

I feel It will be a big loss unless an equivalent feature is found out ,
the equivalent IMHO is multi-tenant feature itself without the warts :-).

@Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]> there is also:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10284 for which i had worked on
a patch.

my 2 cents

regds
mallah.

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 6:19 PM Shi Jinghai <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Jacques,
>
> Honestly I was shocked by this email, I'm working on deploying OFBiz in
> Kubernetes, are you monitoring me?
>
> In 2010, Kubernetes was quite new and not good enough, now it's the
> standard on cloud deploy management, and we can support it.
>
> Before doing that, we have to answer some common questions in cloud
> running lifecycle, such as how may instances/requests can share one CPU,
> how to deliver(create) an instance, how to isolate an instance, how to
> offline, how to remove, how to online again and etc.
>
> Personally I don't think we have to remove current multi-tenants
> implements, add a SAAS implement would be OK.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Shi Jinghai
>
>
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:[hidden email]]
> 发送时间: 2018年8月29日 17:46
> 收件人: [hidden email]
> 主题: Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz?
>
> Hi,
>
> The multi-tenants feature in OFBiz only allows a dozens or maybe even few
> hundreds tenants, after it begin to be a lot of DBs!
> I faced that with a startup which wanted to handle thousands, if not
> millions (actually they failed), of tenants, obviously OFBiz can't do that.
>
> I don't break any secret to say that I was working with David (and Andrew)
> on a project in 2010 when David had to quickly answer to the client's
> demand who wanted to have tenants. David brilliantly and quickly
> delivered, but it was only a start.
>
> After many improvements, this feature still have some issues
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6066
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7900
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6164
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6065
>
> Also this is somehow related
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6712
>
> And most importantly
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7112
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7754
>
> I recently read this article
>
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/architecture-constraints-end-multi-tenancy-gregor-hohpe/
>
> and, after my experiences with multi-tenant as is in OFBiz, it made me
> wonder if we should not think about how it's done now in OFBiz in 2018 with
> the
> clouds being everywhere!
>
> Before sending this email, I quickly exchanged with David about how Moqui
> handles that now. And we are on the same page, see
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4640689/4640689-6180851287941201924
>
>
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41952818/does-moqui-framework-2-0-still-support-mutli-tenency?rq=1
> [1]
>
> [1] Initially David gave me this link
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/multi-instance-moqui-docker-david-e-jones/
>
> but it seems LinkedIn has lost it, as said in the stackoverflow comment.
>
> So IMO why not deprecating the multi-tenants as is now and rather push a
> multi-instances way?
>
> Opinions?
>
> Jacques
>
>

Jacques Le Roux

Re: Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz?

Administrator

In reply to this post by Shi Jinghai-3

Hi Jinghai,

Inline...

Le 29/08/2018 à 14:49, Shi Jinghai a écrit :
> Hi Jacques,
>
> Honestly I was shocked by this email, I'm working on deploying OFBiz in Kubernetes, are you monitoring me?
Not at all :D

> In 2010, Kubernetes was quite new and not good enough, now it's the standard on cloud deploy management, and we can support it.
I agree Kubernetes is a good tool. How do you envision to use it with OFBiz? I see it more as a production tool, not something we can embed like Tomcat.

> Before doing that, we have to answer some common questions in cloud running lifecycle, such as how may instances/requests can share one CPU, how to deliver(create) an instance, how to isolate an instance, how to offline, how to remove, how to online again and etc.
You seem to be advanced in this, have you already , even partially, answered these questions? Are you working on a multi-tenant solution?

> Personally I don't think we have to remove current multi-tenants implements, add a SAAS implement would be OK.
The problem with the current implementation is that it has changed the OFBiz code in some places, not always for the good.
It seems you not alone to want to keep it. Are you using it as is?
They are also people who would be glad to get rid of.
Let's see...

Jacques

Jacques Le Roux

Re: Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz?

Administrator

In reply to this post by Rajesh Mallah

Hi Rajesh,

Rest inline...

Le 29/08/2018 à 15:27, Rajesh Mallah a écrit :

> Hi ,
>
> I strongly feel we should.
>
> For me, multi-tenency is the key feature in supporting more number of organisations
> with a single instance of Java/tomcat. Think of running 20 under-utilized OFBiz instances
> each *locking* up say 1GB ram versus 1 multi-tenant OFBiz instance allocated with a
> copious amount of RAM say 4-8GB ram.
>
> a dozens or maybe even few hundreds tenants, after it begin to be a lot of DBs!
>
>
> I would want to understand for whom does it becomes a *lot* of DB ?

I worked with a startup. They had a business model where they would only win if they could have tens of thousands of tenants (if not hundreds of
thousands).
Their goal was to ultimately get millions of them. It was not about URIs, but *separated *DBs. Obviously OFBiz multi-tenant could not sustain that.

> In case it is about persistent connections to 100s' of distinct uris (ie. host+user+db combination)
> from the JDBC pool, we can offload the connection pooling feature to an external
> pooler , (eg: pgpool or pgbouncer , in case of postgreSQL) , and convert the connection
> mode from persistent to non-persistent at the tomcat level . So a *new* connection is made
> on a HTTP request and disconnected as soon as the request is served.
> in oracle we have: https://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/appdev.111/b28395/oci09adv.htm#LNOCI87721
> in postgreSQL: https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/56559/postgresql-high-availability-scalability-using-haproxy-and-pgbouncer
> In case it is the sheer number of db connections i feel users can come up with their own
> architectures suiting their environment.
Are you using your suggestions in production?

>
> (disclaimer: I am not expert in tomcat but i am trying to draw parallels with other application servers)
>
> And its not only a matter of resource sharing only, deploying a new client on a multi tenant OFBiz
> instance is 10 times simpler than creating a new instance and configuring a new OFBiz instance
> itself ( discounting the factor or chef/puppet /salt/ansible/your favorite automation tool) .
Actually in their case the instance would have been initially always the same. So deploying copies was not a problem.

> I feel It will be a big loss unless an equivalent feature is found out ,
> the equivalent IMHO is multi-tenant feature itself without the warts :-).
You are not the only one to express concerns. We need to consider that, but we also need to consider what tenants entails in OFBiz code.

>
> @Jacques Le Roux <mailto:[hidden email]> there is also:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10284 for which i had worked on
Thanks for the reminder, more on that later...

Jacques

> a patch.
>
> my 2 cents
>
> regds
> mallah.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 6:19 PM Shi Jinghai <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> Hi Jacques,
>
> Honestly I was shocked by this email, I'm working on deploying OFBiz in Kubernetes, are you monitoring me?
>
> In 2010, Kubernetes was quite new and not good enough, now it's the standard on cloud deploy management, and we can support it.
>
> Before doing that, we have to answer some common questions in cloud running lifecycle, such as how may instances/requests can share one CPU, how
> to deliver(create) an instance, how to isolate an instance, how to offline, how to remove, how to online again and etc.
>
> Personally I don't think we have to remove current multi-tenants implements, add a SAAS implement would be OK.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Shi Jinghai
>
>
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>]
> 发送时间: 2018年8月29日 17:46
> 收件人: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> 主题: Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz?
>
> Hi,
>
> The multi-tenants feature in OFBiz only allows a dozens or maybe even few hundreds tenants, after it begin to be a lot of DBs!
> I faced that with a startup which wanted to handle thousands, if not millions (actually they failed), of tenants, obviously OFBiz can't do that.
>
> I don't break any secret to say that I was working with David (and Andrew) on a project in 2010 when David had to quickly answer to the client's
> demand who wanted to have tenants. David brilliantly and quickly delivered, but it was only a start.
>
> After many improvements, this feature still have some issues
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6066
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7900
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6164
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6065
>
> Also this is somehow related
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6712
>
> And most importantly
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7112
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7754
>
> I recently read this article
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/architecture-constraints-end-multi-tenancy-gregor-hohpe/
>
> and, after my experiences with multi-tenant as is in OFBiz, it made me wonder if we should not think about how it's done now in OFBiz in 2018
> with the
> clouds being everywhere!
>
> Before sending this email, I quickly exchanged with David about how Moqui handles that now. And we are on the same page, see
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4640689/4640689-6180851287941201924
>
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41952818/does-moqui-framework-2-0-still-support-mutli-tenency?rq=1 [1]
>
> [1] Initially David gave me this link
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/multi-instance-moqui-docker-david-e-jones/
>
> but it seems LinkedIn has lost it, as said in the stackoverflow comment.
>
> So IMO why not deprecating the multi-tenants as is now and rather push a multi-instances way?
>
> Opinions?
>
> Jacques
>

Shi Jinghai-3

Re: Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz?

In reply to this post by Jacques Le Roux

Hi Jacques,

I assume we face the same requirement: how to become a value-added reseller of cloud services. In China, the reseller margin could be 15-20% from Alibaba cloud or other cloud venders, so there's a new business model that we can offer some vertical OFBiz applications "free" and profitable.

Kubernetes is the management tool to sell/distribute OFBiz applications.

The OFBiz applications can be a multi-tenants model: multiple customers share one machine at a low price, this model is suitable for tiny/small customers.

The OFBiz applications can also be a multi-instances model: each customer can scale up/down its-own application on-demand, this model is suitable for medium/large customers.

Every customer can upgrade from multi-tenants to multi-instances, or downgrade from multi-instances to multi-tenants.

Thank you for this topic. Please count me in if we have the same target.

Kind Regards,

Shi Jinghai

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:[hidden email]]
发送时间: 2018年9月2日 16:13
收件人: [hidden email]
主题: Re: Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz?

Hi Jinghai,

Inline...

Le 29/08/2018 à 14:49, Shi Jinghai a écrit :
> Hi Jacques,
>
> Honestly I was shocked by this email, I'm working on deploying OFBiz in Kubernetes, are you monitoring me?
Not at all :D

> In 2010, Kubernetes was quite new and not good enough, now it's the standard on cloud deploy management, and we can support it.
I agree Kubernetes is a good tool. How do you envision to use it with OFBiz? I see it more as a production tool, not something we can embed like Tomcat.

> Before doing that, we have to answer some common questions in cloud running lifecycle, such as how may instances/requests can share one CPU, how to deliver(create) an instance, how to isolate an instance, how to offline, how to remove, how to online again and etc.
You seem to be advanced in this, have you already , even partially, answered these questions? Are you working on a multi-tenant solution?

> Personally I don't think we have to remove current multi-tenants implements, add a SAAS implement would be OK.
The problem with the current implementation is that it has changed the OFBiz code in some places, not always for the good.
It seems you not alone to want to keep it. Are you using it as is?
They are also people who would be glad to get rid of.
Let's see...

Jacques

jsmith_dev

Re: Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz?

Hi All,

Blockfrieght, Inc. has a alpha (work in progress) Kubernetes wrapper /
production deployment repository (work in progress) published here:

https://github.com/blockfreight/ofbiz-erp

Feedback / Advice and Bug-Reports welcome (as is suggestions of how to make
the example more canonical and of use to other’s globally.

Regards,

Julian Smith,

Blockfreight, Inc.
535 Mission street 14th floor
San Francisco, CA 94205

Jacques Le Roux

Re: Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz?

Administrator

In reply to this post by Shi Jinghai-3

Hi Jinghai,

Inline...

Le 03/09/2018 à 10:35, Shi Jinghai a écrit :
> Hi Jacques,
>
> I assume we face the same requirement: how to become a value-added reseller of cloud services.
Actually no, I only want to know if we want to keep the multi-tenants feature as is now, remove it or change to another model.

> In China, the reseller margin could be 15-20% from Alibaba cloud or other cloud venders, so there's a new business model that we can offer some vertical OFBiz applications "free" and profitable.
>
> Kubernetes is the management tool to sell/distribute OFBiz applications.
>
> The OFBiz applications can be a multi-tenants model: multiple customers share one machine at a low price, this model is suitable for tiny/small customers.
>
> The OFBiz applications can also be a multi-instances model: each customer can scale up/down its-own application on-demand, this model is suitable for medium/large customers.
>
> Every customer can upgrade from multi-tenants to multi-instances, or downgrade from multi-instances to multi-tenants.
>
> Thank you for this topic. Please count me in if we have the same target.

We have not the same target, mine is less ambitious.

Your analysis is interesting. It also means that you not only want to keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz but also add the multi-instances model.
That makes sense but I'm not sure if the project wants to go that far.

Thanks for answering and sharing your ideas

Cheers

Jacques

Rajesh Mallah

Re: Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz?

Hi Jacques / List ,
Your Inline response did not reach me on my email id and I came to know
about your response from the
archives only.

> Q: Are you using your suggestions in production?
>
A: Yes external connection pooling was eventually adopted to run an
application that were accessed
at web-scale. yes there were load balancing arrangements at various
parts of the architecture.
One of the significant architectural pattern that was employed in that
application is that it maintained
two kinds of global connection handles one for reading (to the cluster of
read-only DB slave instances)
and one for writing. For reading no transaction was begun in the http
request - response cycle. In case of
writing only DB transaction was begun and attempt was made to make the
duration of transaction as
short as possible.

Actually in their case *the* instance would have been initially always *the*
> same.
> So deploying copies was not a problem.
>
>
Yes cloning and deploying is feasible at times .

> @Jacques Le Roux <mailto:[hidden email]> there is also:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10284 for which i had worked
> on
>
> Thanks for *the* reminder, more on that later...
>

Actually I will have to redo it as my patch was based on last stable
release , i was asked to do it
for the latest tip.

regds
mallah.

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 7:40 PM Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Jinghai,
>
> Inline...
>
>
> Le 03/09/2018 à 10:35, Shi Jinghai a écrit :
> > Hi Jacques,
> >
> > I assume we face the same requirement: how to become a value-added
> reseller of cloud services.
> Actually no, I only want to know if we want to keep the multi-tenants
> feature as is now, remove it or change to another model.
>
> > In China, the reseller margin could be 15-20% from Alibaba cloud or
> other cloud venders, so there's a new business model that we can offer some
> vertical OFBiz applications "free" and profitable.
> >
> > Kubernetes is the management tool to sell/distribute OFBiz applications.
> >
> > The OFBiz applications can be a multi-tenants model: multiple customers
> share one machine at a low price, this model is suitable for tiny/small
> customers.
> >
> > The OFBiz applications can also be a multi-instances model: each
> customer can scale up/down its-own application on-demand, this model is
> suitable for medium/large customers.
> >
> > Every customer can upgrade from multi-tenants to multi-instances, or
> downgrade from multi-instances to multi-tenants.
> >
> > Thank you for this topic. Please count me in if we have the same target.
> We have not the same target, mine is less ambitious.
>
> Your analysis is interesting. It also means that you not only want to keep
> the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz but also add the multi-instances model.
> That makes sense but I'm not sure if the project wants to go that far.
>
> Thanks for answering and sharing your ideas
>
> Cheers
>
> Jacques
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> > Shi Jinghai
> >
> >
> >
> > -----邮件原件-----
> > 发件人: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > 发送时间: 2018年9月2日 16:13
> > 收件人: [hidden email]
> > 主题: Re: Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz?
> >
> > Hi Jinghai,
> >
> > Inline...
> >
> >
> > Le 29/08/2018 à 14:49, Shi Jinghai a écrit :
> >> Hi Jacques,
> >>
> >> Honestly I was shocked by this email, I'm working on deploying OFBiz in
> Kubernetes, are you monitoring me?
> > Not at all :D
> >
> >> In 2010, Kubernetes was quite new and not good enough, now it's the
> standard on cloud deploy management, and we can support it.
> > I agree Kubernetes is a good tool. How do you envision to use it with
> OFBiz? I see it more as a production tool, not something we can embed like
> Tomcat.
> >
> >> Before doing that, we have to answer some common questions in cloud
> running lifecycle, such as how may instances/requests can share one CPU,
> how to deliver(create) an instance, how to isolate an instance, how to
> offline, how to remove, how to online again and etc.
> > You seem to be advanced in this, have you already , even partially,
> answered these questions? Are you working on a multi-tenant solution?
> >
> >> Personally I don't think we have to remove current multi-tenants
> implements, add a SAAS implement would be OK.
> > The problem with the current implementation is that it has changed the
> OFBiz code in some places, not always for the good.
> > It seems you not alone to want to keep it. Are you using it as is?
> > They are also people who would be glad to get rid of.
> > Let's see...
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> >> Kind Regards,
> >>
> >> Shi Jinghai
> >>
> >>
> >> -----邮件原件-----
> >> 发件人: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:[hidden email]]
> >> 发送时间: 2018年8月29日 17:46
> >> 收件人: [hidden email]
> >> 主题: Should we keep the multi-tenants feature in OFBiz?
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> The multi-tenants feature in OFBiz only allows a dozens or maybe even
> few hundreds tenants, after it begin to be a lot of DBs!
> >> I faced that with a startup which wanted to handle thousands, if not
> millions (actually they failed), of tenants, obviously OFBiz can't do that.
> >>
> >> I don't break any secret to say that I was working with David (and
> Andrew) on a project in 2010 when David had to quickly answer to the
> client's
> >> demand who wanted to have tenants. David brilliantly and quickly
> delivered, but it was only a start.
> >>
> >> After many improvements, this feature still have some issues
> >>
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FOFBIZ-6066&data=02%7C01%7C%7C08ade5bcabda49a1f68308d610abf411%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636714728052368674&sdata=QCPlqtRHjd9a%2Fq3NIVujeqhR3o6sjjZ0sUEbFk4ojp8%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FOFBIZ-7900&data=02%7C01%7C%7C08ade5bcabda49a1f68308d610abf411%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636714728052368674&sdata=fxUSwHPjg%2F8Nf2aDGCODhKauIVAbmK1wb%2B67%2FPZGrRU%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FOFBIZ-6164&data=02%7C01%7C%7C08ade5bcabda49a1f68308d610abf411%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636714728052368674&sdata=MoH0jYAEo5IY0HA5xQOO2ZBKKMMU9RdloK1xlWNY6oY%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FOFBIZ-6065&data=02%7C01%7C%7C08ade5bcabda49a1f68308d610abf411%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636714728052368674&sdata=4lZb89MwttM6VGxNdT9XSeP0sEL6UBlEMOdwf%2BsU9c8%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >> Also this is somehow related
> >>
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FOFBIZ-6712&data=02%7C01%7C%7C08ade5bcabda49a1f68308d610abf411%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636714728052368674&sdata=LdE%2FSQc51d%2BeN1TdZMFJgDLJT8MmFaN16VPP9H1izto%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >> And most importantly
> >>
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FOFBIZ-7112&data=02%7C01%7C%7C08ade5bcabda49a1f68308d610abf411%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636714728052368674&sdata=L%2F2yFHwSU3GcdtLdGg8M%2FcjrP0%2BnPeq8ggPwFcAvMKs%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FOFBIZ-7754&data=02%7C01%7C%7C08ade5bcabda49a1f68308d610abf411%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636714728052368674&sdata=r%2FKZMGv73Z7R6Tr7lGZhx3AF7z2Fx39tnKsn5LsiiWs%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >> I recently read this article
> >>
> >>
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fpulse%2Farchitecture-constraints-end-multi-tenancy-gregor-hohpe%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C08ade5bcabda49a1f68308d610abf411%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636714728052368674&sdata=4t%2BvaOgukTnG6vFTWHrkrcRInv%2B4CGD7V%2FxoHE0cLJU%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >> and, after my experiences with multi-tenant as is in OFBiz, it made me
> wonder if we should not think about how it's done now in OFBiz in 2018 with
> the
> >> clouds being everywhere!
> >>
> >> Before sending this email, I quickly exchanged with David about how
> Moqui handles that now. And we are on the same page, see
> >>
> >>
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fgroups%2F4640689%2F4640689-6180851287941201924&data=02%7C01%7C%7C08ade5bcabda49a1f68308d610abf411%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636714728052368674&sdata=ju2Mc4pm0J4fCm%2BxLmT%2BzWNlmhvyUzQjc9jWH2%2BV8dE%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >>
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstackoverflow.com%2Fquestions%2F41952818%2Fdoes-moqui-framework-2-0-still-support-mutli-tenency%3Frq%3D1&data=02%7C01%7C%7C08ade5bcabda49a1f68308d610abf411%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636714728052368674&sdata=Br9%2FvuhawrnxZoS1XAY%2BNFDGNzg6ilBiO%2Fx1HlR3uNg%3D&reserved=0
> [1]
> >>
> >> [1] Initially David gave me this link
> >>
> >>
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fpulse%2Fmulti-instance-moqui-docker-david-e-jones%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C08ade5bcabda49a1f68308d610abf411%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636714728052368674&sdata=iqRUsCO1ZVGYhGqw%2FFL6gFzkPojSFvlgyOgs4jVMtDM%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >> but it seems LinkedIn has lost it, as said in the stackoverflow comment.
> >>
> >> So IMO why not deprecating the multi-tenants as is now and rather push
> a multi-instances way?
> >>
> >> Opinions?
> >>
> >> Jacques
> >>
>
>