[ic] Scalable usage of Interchange
paul at gishnetwork.com
Tue Apr 17 00:08:44 EDT 2007
interchange-users-bounces at icdevgroup.org wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Paul Jordan wrote:
>> So, if one were to have an ecommerce store, web mail and CRM would it
>> make sense to have designed them in their own IC installs? I mean,
>> regardless IF they are busy... When they are busy I was thinking,
>> should I be able to have an IC install for webmail, and another for
>> the store, and so on.
> It depends on whether they share code, HTML templates,
> sessions, and the database. If all those apps are used by the same
> the same user database, and have shared code, it might make sense to
> leave them all on the same Interchange daemon.
> Normally I find it's best to default to a separate
> Interchange daemon per application so you can have global code and
> that doesn't affect any other applications. But if you really have a
> of different applications developed by the same group of people, you
> not even want or need different Interchange catalogs. Why not just use
> with different URL space for different functions?
Well, most importantly noted is that they share tables. Ecommerce shares
tables and nothing else, CRM,CMS and Webmail share tables and sessions.
Basically, yes, they do share.
I like my installs where everything is on one catalog. The only reason I
have this one using separate catalogs for CRM and ecommerce is because
Mike one day told me a good security measure was to separate "secure
applications" that use Admin, form ones that don't need too use Admin.
Nowadays, I really don't use Admin at all, although I have it running
for small tasks that the CRM currently does not do - so maybe it is a
As for URL separation, that is not necessary I don't think. I don't
*need* any sort of separation, but was wondering if I should utilize
separation for scalability.
As for apps affecting other apps - I think if I am careful to always use
a proper dev environment, I can minimize any potential problems - but
yes, I do think about the possibility of IC not starting and *nothing*
>> What I am hoping to hear is that one IC catalog is the way to go and
>> if things got crazy busy something like this could be done:
>> Without much drama dismantling a busy catalog.
> They're not mutually exclusive. You can scale out to multiple
> Interchange servers with one catalog per IC or many. The key is
> getting a shared session backend that can handle the load. And until
> you hit fairly high traffic levels, that's not too hard.
That makes me feel better. I think unless someone brings up a good point
otherwise, i'll use a single catalog as it makes life much simpler in
Thank you Jon
More information about the interchange-users