Standalone vs. Virtual Deployments in 7.4

isilver's Avatar

isilver

16 Jul, 2013 01:07 PM

As part of our effort to move from 6.8.2 to 7.4, we will need to move off of our existing hardware, as it has come to end of life. This provides us with the opportunity to decide between a standalone vs. a virtualized deployment. In either case, we will be running Windows 2008 Server, utilizing 4 cores, and with 8GB of dedicated RAM.

With that as a simple starting point, what are the next questions to ask, or points to consider to make a determination as to which type of deployment would be a better fit for us?

My personal preference is to go virtualized. What are some circumstances when this is a sub-optimal choice?

Our deployment houses course outlines for the college, so there are a few thousand pages, all built off the same templates, with a relatively low amount of complexity. Only a small percentage of these are modified from term to term, so at peak times we would be supporting a few hundred updates for a few weeks, and there would be periods when there would be few to no updates at all.

The largest resource drain on the deployment today are processes to generate a number of cross-reference index listings. These have to traverse the entire site hierarchy to build these cross reference listing pages. This is actually a source of a performance issues we are researching, both within the preview in the CMS, and in generating pages for publishing.

Thanks for any insights!

I think that about sums us up.

  1. Support Staff 1 Posted by Tim on 16 Jul, 2013 02:23 PM

    Tim's Avatar

    Hi,

    With that as a simple starting point, what are the next questions to ask, or points to consider to make a determination as to which type of deployment would be a better fit for us? My personal preference is to go virtualized. What are some circumstances when this is a sub-optimal choice?

    I would recommend going with your organization's preference (what is more cost effective? what is easier to support?). We have numerous clients running their Cascade Server instance in a virtualized environment. I've had one or two clients mention that performance on a VM was not quite as good as a physical machine so that is likely due to the overhead of virtualization. The good news in a VM is that it's much easier to allocate more resources as the need arises. Just FYI, we run our Cascade Cloud instances on Linux virtual machines and performance there has been phenomenal.

    When you install and configure your new instance, I would recommend allocating 4GB (of the 8GB total) to Cascade Server itself. Also, make sure that your database resides on a separate VM. This will ensure that there is no resource contention between the application and database (if they were on the same machine).

    I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any further questions.

    Thanks

  2. 2 Posted by rcheyne on 07 Aug, 2013 08:40 PM

    rcheyne's Avatar

    We use a Linux VM in a VMWare environment with 4GB of RAM and 4 cores that's been working OK with 500 users and 69 sites. It seems like the new 7.4 software, or maybe just growing usage, is a little more demanding so we're considering adding resources.

  3. Tim closed this discussion on 26 Sep, 2013 06:21 PM.

Comments are currently closed for this discussion. You can start a new one.

Keyboard shortcuts

Generic

? Show this help
ESC Blurs the current field

Comment Form

r Focus the comment reply box
^ + ↩ Submit the comment

You can use Command ⌘ instead of Control ^ on Mac