cold fusion and oracle on same server!!!
I have never heard of doing this, and it is being discussed in a meeting in about an hour. I know that this is not a good idea! I can't find any documentation for or against doing this. I want to go to the meeting armed. Any advice?
i write stuff, they give me money... sometimes, it works... :P
First of all, its more expensive! And cold-fusion is markup-based. That would be enough to steer me away from it.
Show them some docs on Java + Oracle. They are a much better couple.
Not sure what the concern is here: compatibility, or server load, or what? I can't imagine Cold Fusion would not be compatible with Oracle. (I've used CF in the past with Informix RDBMS, but not with Oracle, and it's been several years now.)
"Please give us a simple answer, so that we don't have to think, because if we think, we might find answers that don't fit the way we want the world to be."
~ Terry Pratchett in Nation
never, never, never run an enterprise database and web server on the same machine. they each need dedicated boxes. you are going to be in for poor performance and frequent crashes -- especially if you are running on Windows or Linux OS, but true on Solaris as well.
these are both cpu and memory intensive applications, designed to run on dedicated servers. each is designed to make optimum use of the OS and all resources for it's own purposes.
you almost won't believe the performance cost to the database by running a web server on the same machine. you'll halve the resources available to it (when your web server isn't experience peak traffic) and you severely limit the number of usable connections to the db.
you are nearly assured to get thread locking when peak web server usage coincides with peak database usage -- causing reboot and possible data loss.
the only case where this is ok is if you are running a mid-range or main frame server, which I'll bet you aren't, else you'd probably talking about Oracle or DB2 and maybe WebSphere but not Cold Fusion.
you are right. not only is it not a good idea, it is a recipe for disaster. if implemented, at some point down the road, you'll be fixing it, at a much greater cost than building it right in the 1st place.
and i didn't even mention the security loopholes such an architecture creates...
there is a section in this article that you will find of interest.
The basic idea is this, "You can't access what you can't see". Why in the name of the Almighty (or whoever else you believe in, or if you are an Atheist, substitute your own name here) would you let your database server be visible to the world. This is not a web server here, there should be no such thing as an anonymous connection. Now some people would say, "Well, what if your database server is supplying information to dynamic web pages?", well I'll turn that around and say, "Your database back end should never be on the same machine as your web server, not just for security, but for performance!" If your database server is supplying information to a web server then it should be configure to allow connections only from that web server
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)