On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:33:01 +0300, Nina Jeliazkova
<jeliazkova.nina at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 July 2011 11:24, Andreas Maunz <andreas at maunz.de> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:04:58 +0300, Nina Jeliazkova
>> <jeliazkova.nina at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The modified version of Policy service is also available at
>> > https://github.com/vedina/Pol
>> >
>> > 1) table structure slightly modified
>> > 2) added connection pool (c3p0) for handling MySQL connection
>> > 3) the presence of tokens is verified first, then all other actions are
>> > taken (this solves the issue reported by Vedrin)
>> > 4) improved exception handling
>> > 5) refactored as a maven project (besides all the maven goodies, now one
>> can
>> > test it locally by running mvn tomcat:run , without explicitly installing
>> a
>> > servlet container)
>> > 6) other minor refactoring for better readability
>>
>> Hi Nina, thank you for reviewing and improving on the Pol service code.
>>
>> Indeed Vedrin has pointed earlier to issue 3), which I should have
>> already fixed.
>>
>> > To summarize, an improved version of OpenTox AA (with the newest OpenAM
>> and
>> > policies extracted from the current setup and imported into the new one)
>> can
>> > be setup in few days, and will have a better response time and
>> scalability
>> > than currently.  There is still a problem with increased latency of bulk
>> > delete of policies (bulk means deleting several tens of thousands
>> policies)
>> > , but as far as I understood, for few tens of policies  (as is in the
>> > validation use case), there is no such problem.  Vedrin will be sending
>> more
>> > details about the outcome from the extensive OpenAM experiments he is
>> > performing since the last week.
>>
>> We can probably best discuss in the meeting, where and when to set up
>> the new service.
>>
> 
> Yes indeed.
> 
> 
> 
>> I am not a fanatic about cloud vs standard deployments, but would
>> generally prefer a cloud-based solution, mainly for reasons of easier
>> manageability.
>>
> 
> 
> 
>> Let me just point at an advertised difference between Jiffybox and most
>> cloud services, which is the dedicated resources (in German:
>> https://www.jiffybox.de/faq_index.html). I have experienced very good
>> performance with JB so far.
>>
> 
> 
> I don't have anything against the current cloud solution, if it offers
> reasonable performance / price rate :)

The two configurations there that would suit our needs are:
1) "CloudLevel 4" with 8G RAM, 4 CPUs for 96,72 EUR / month (if run
continuously)
2) "CloudLevel 5" with 16G RAM, 4 CPUs for 186,00 EUR / month (if run
continuously)

I am not sure if this is a expensive.

Best regards
Andreas