You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I know it is possible to run different lsfusion application servers in parallel (each with it's own database and rmi.port). But each app server eats a lot of ram (2Gb+ on start and more afterwards).
Is it possible to run ONE lsfusion application server with multiple different databases, to save RAM ? (100x of instances)
Can you guys estimate how hard it would be to implement this ?
Any other ways to decrease RAM usage of app servers ? (lsfusion application data is very small and don't need large buffers). I see one possible way - export Jasper-Reports code into microservice, but that will save <500Mb.
Same question about web clients (500Mb each).
Or maybe I am wrong and it is easier to use one database with one app server, and add some other way to distinguish different datasets (*instance_id key in each table) ? How hard it would be to implement this ?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I know it is possible to run different lsfusion application servers in parallel (each with it's own database and rmi.port). But each app server eats a lot of ram (2Gb+ on start and more afterwards).
Is it possible to run ONE lsfusion application server with multiple different databases, to save RAM ? (100x of instances)
Can you guys estimate how hard it would be to implement this ?
Any other ways to decrease RAM usage of app servers ? (lsfusion application data is very small and don't need large buffers). I see one possible way - export Jasper-Reports code into microservice, but that will save <500Mb.
Same question about web clients (500Mb each).
Or maybe I am wrong and it is easier to use one database with one app server, and add some other way to distinguish different datasets (*instance_id key in each table) ? How hard it would be to implement this ?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: