 | |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Sockets on D3 and mvBase -
08-15-2005
, 10:53 AM
|
Thanks Tony and Ross. Please don't run away with the idea that I am furtively working on a way to cheat Raining Data. Actually my modest hope is that my work will benefit the MVDBMS community when completed. This is part of my MSc project. I am trying to get an understanding of "who does what" with sockets in the MVDBMS vendor world. So far I know that D3 offer a somewhat troubled support for network sockets within the FLASHBasic language. Whilst I hear that there are D3/socket licensing issues I have yet to determine exactly what these are. I know that UniVision and jBase provide excellent support for network sockets as free evaluation versions are available for these products. I still have NO idea what is offered by mvBase - if anything. Can anyone please enlighten? Thanks again. John Tony Gravagno wrote: John, we've had several exchanges on this in the past. If you want connectivity with D3 or mvBASE, you know I can do it, but it won't be free and it won't give you a 10-to-1 user/license ratio either. John wrote: Does this put D3 at a disadvantage for Web/HTML applications? As phrased, that question has a (probably unintentional) wide scope. D3 isn't at a disadvantage by any means. You can support any average web site on a minimal number of connections. For better or worse, none of the FlashCONNECT sites that I've setup require more than 5 licenses, usually only two for an intranet or until they build momentum for outside use. If you're getting traffic comparable to EBay then sure you'll need more licenses but then you wouldn't have a problem with an extra couple hundred dollars to pay for licenses. Ross Ferris" wrote: As always, there are things that you could do, but RD may need the money to keep the doors open, so please pay them what they ask. Agreed. I think John's issue is that he's writing tools and doesn't want his clients to have to consume/purchase licenses in order to use his software. Hey, we're all in the same boat. The only way to justify bypassing or reducing end-user license consumption is if you can prove that your value-add software will actually encourage more license purchases with across the board. We have products in our market that are helping to do that. IMO, most attempts at cost reduction like this are just intended to increase near-term VAR income, and that just puts another nail in the MV coffin. That said, perhaps they will move to a different licence strategy one day so that they COULD effectively compete in the WWWorld - but I'm not holding my breath 'cause I can see that this would see their revenues (and viability) plummet I think a change to the "right" model will preserve a revenue stream. The per-seat license model died long ago. I'd still advocate a model based on some combination of disk, bandwidth, and/or hits. Most people don't like the pay as you go model, but we have no complaints applying it to phone, gas, electric, auto gas/petrol, etc. We pay to ship packages and truckloads of goods on a per-use basis, why is electronic data any different? And for phone there is the "unlimited usage" plan, which is also used for some connectivity software like ColdFusion, and it would easily work for larger MV shops as well. Until someone proposes something that will work then we can't expect the MV vendors to modify their old pricing structures. I don't recall any firm proposals in these forums, just a lot of complaints about licenses costing too much. T |
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
However, for web work (and also non web work), the interface between my web (and windows clients) is a Windows Message Queue (MSMQ). |
excellent way to conserve resources and connect heterogeneous systems.
I think many systems lend themselves well to such an approach.
--
Kevin Powick
#13
| ||||||
| ||||||
|
|
Hi Glen, You sorta missed the point ... but let me play Devil's Advocate (Imagine that! LOL) SNIP D3 isn't at a disadvantage when compared with what? Other MV platforms maybe? I would love to be able to use a MV backend for my web work and perhaps I am missing something but licensing costs have thus far prevented me from attempting this. Socket built-ins will always be problematic when you look at portability. The unique exception is if you develop your own TCP stack within MVBASIC and make the connection directly into the VME instead of through a network subsystem based on the O/S. Doug @ ModSoft has done that with the Pic-Lan product. It's very stable and something you should look at if you're that devoted to having sockets inside MV. I. personally, would put the socket connectivity outside of MV simply for better control and future expansion. First, I am _not_ devoted in any way to having sockets inside MV. Sockets aren't (weren't) the point of this. MV licensing schemes which assure that their products won't be used were the point. |
Quote:
|
web site on a minimal number of connections. For better or worse, none of the FlashCONNECT sites that I've setup require more than 5 licenses, usually only two for an intranet or until they build To help me grok the situation, does this mean that these sites never have more than five simultaneuos visitors? Or is the user -> license ratio something other than 1:1? I have 8 FC ports running and only about 3 of them are in use at any given time. We have ~150-200K hits per day with about 20-30K of those So not even a blip on the screen of the EBay scale volume Tony mentioned. |
could serve dynamic content on that scale from MV, but it won't be
through a few FlashCONNECT slots. We're back to a seperate discussion
of connectivity and architecture of services. Since sockets are raw
portals, you can pass whatever you want. In the view of an MV-centric
HTTP model, you have to assume that most developers are going to be
dumping large amounts of HTML code via that one pipe. That might even
include binary images. Something like that won't cut in a
100-hit-per-second model. I agree with you on that point. Not only
will the license model kill your development, but you will also be
limited by trying to force such a load on a single machine. Pooling
will help some, but you've still got to consider the network traffic
as well as storage and retrieval of non-dynamic content. It's true
that the license model of a DB is a small, but extremely important
aspect of the overal design and cost.
Quote:
|
I have 8 FC ports running and only about 3 of them are in use at any given time. We have ~150-200K hits per day with about 20-30K of those being FC. Typically, 3 of the 8 are in use while 2 more spill over when there's a heavy instantaneous spike. The key to developing on a live data platform is to mix dynamic content with static content. You can squeeze a lot of data activity out of a few slots if you don't abuse the connectivity. OK. Now you are approaching the point. Most of my sites do 'abuse the connectivity'. Silly little things like shopping carts, forums, links pages, guestbooks, portfolios and the like use pages dynamically created from database entries. |
available, is actually serving ~115K hits a day on 2-3 of them under a
90-95% time basis. Sometimes there's a spike over all 8 slots, but
it's only once or twice during a 24-hour period. As we get more
traffic that will go up. Here's a sample of some of my deployment:
SSI dynamic header and footer calls from FC, which includes
tokenization of javascript menus, shopping cart info tags, and META
and TITLE parameters. Every static page we make calls FC to get the
header and footer, which includes some embedded JavaScript.
The entire shopping system(90% of the web site), checkout stands,
product information browsing, and a highly integrated registered
account system with on-the-fly PDF invoice creation, sales history,
and customer price matrices.
MV-based search engine that finds products by partial sku, web
description, short description, vendor name, and sku aliases. It also
performs a spell check suggestion when there are no matches. We have
~14K items live on the web site right now. That's no where near what
Ebay has, but there's no reason why I couldn't get the same
performance with 10million items using an external key search under
the O/S while keeping my detail in MV.
Quote:
|
This isn't really as if I am driving a huge SUV as a grocery getter though because I use php and mySQL or pgSQL. Why should 'abusing the connectivity' even be an issue? For the convenience of having the PICK data model? That _is_ mighty handy but can I in good faith ask my clients to fund my desire for handiness? |
way. The trick is to use the right technology in combination to obtain
the best performance for a specific task. MV isn't the answer to
everything, but it can be used to make supporting other technologies a
lot easier. PHP can work with MV and MySQL at the same time. There's
no reason why you can't use MySQL, from my previous ebay notion, to
store a cross-reference DB and use it for searching. You can still
store and retrieve your real business data directly from MV. Taking
that search load off of MV will prove a huge performance increase over
using one or the other independantly.
Quote:
|
For that matter pgsql contains some of the data model functionality that comes into play in this discussion. The fact that picksource.com, mvdevcentral and other sites devoted to MV development do not take advantage of MV backends. A little like using a Cadillac to promote your Ford, eh? Or Bill trotting out a G4 to hype his latest Windoze wonder (at least it wouldn't lock up during the demo :-/) Since you are in a position to answer: Do you suppose that the reason for this was the superiority of the tools or the difference in licensing costs? |
in the code management world and is the best choice to power an open
source code management system. I have done the research and considered
writing an OpenQM adapter for GForge. Unfortunately, I don't have the
time.
As far as PickSource, the same applies. PHP-Nuke has been around a
while and is a solid platform for hosting a content management system.
The database and licensing had nothing to do with any of it.
When I see a commercial MV-based product that can compete with either
of those projects then I'll consider forking out my own cash for it.
Quote:
|
SNIP problem with an extra couple hundred dollars to pay for licenses. Under US $500.00 would cover license needs for traffic on an EBay scale? If this is even close, _please_ let me know and I will surely reconsider. Even $5000 for a set of licenses is nothing, if your web sales are Although that might be considered chump change to some developers, it is a far cry from 'an extra couple hundred dollars'. What does this $5000.00 buy for my client? The extra time I have to spend doing a left join instead of reading values costs a tiny fraction of that. And I get the cash ;-) And I get a security model that actually _means_ something. And known risks because I am using standard tools that have been exposed to the bad guys for years. |
agree. The MV model has been largely based on the fact that IT
departments used to run themselves with little to no budget. Two guys
in an office wrote the applications that needed to be implemented in a
hurry. That is not the case anymore. More and more companies are
contracting long-term and short-term development out and want a
one-time budgetable charge to make their business procedures work
efficiently when it's all done. Open source initiatives have filled in
the gap in-between and have also quickened the response time of those
who embrace it. That's one of the main reasons why OSS interest has
been growing steadily over the past 10 years.
Glen
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
 |
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.