Why so many, in separate files, you ask... 1. why not? (what's the cost/risk of multiple Data.fs files and mount points), hmmm? 2. makes it easy to move a single client site between instances and servers (we don't yet know how load is going to mount up, and whether we'll need to set up a new server at, say, 30 sites, or 100, or ...) 3. site import/export doesn't work as well, and it seems that import/export of "large" Zope objects is deprecated... 4. I'm told that, occasionally, Data.fs become corrupted. We have some protection if that happens, since it should (I'd think) affect only one client, not many. I'm very interested in answers to #1 (things that will make me regret our current strategy) Chris Withers wrote:
Christoph Berendes wrote:
I am writing to tap the list's experience with running a single zope instance with a large number (30, 500, 2000?) of mount points.
Why do you want so many ;-)
We're hosting a number of client sites, and for each client, e.g. clientX, we have a mount point:
<zodb_db clientX> mount-point /clientX <filestorage> path $INSTANCE/var/clientX/Data.fs </filestorage> </zodb_db>
Why not just keep them all in the same .fs file?
cheers,
Chris