Re: Hosts and Host Instances

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

Thanks, Scott.
So, do you mean leave the hosts and instances as they are or create a single
host/instance that ALL of our development machines will share (but seperate
from "production"), like this:

Production server:
ProductionInProcessHost
ProductionIsolatedHost

ALL development machines:
TestInProcessHost
TestIsolatedHost

Thanks,
Dan

"Scott Colestock" <scolestock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e2iL2iwaFHA.2444@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Since your production environment and all of your workstations are almost
> certainly functioning as independent groups, there is no reason why you
> can't have identical host names for all - and in fact, that will simplify
> deployment & migration.
>
> Stopping/starting a "Foo host" on a development workstation won't affect
> your production server or any other development workstation.
> (Assuming they aren't part of the same group.)
>
> Does that make sense? Most often, as your needs get more sophisticated,
> you will partition hosts by function (send, rcv, processing, etc.)
>
> Scott Colestock
> www.traceofthought.net
>
>
> "Dan Tharp" <dtharp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:eX$ZcztaFHA.3132@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> I'd like some 'best practice' advice on how to best set up hosts and host
>> instances for my 1 "production" server and our 3 "test" (development)
>> workstations.
>> I'd like to set up hosts/instances in a way that we can start/stop
>> processes while testing and not effect anything in production.
>> I've also read that it's advisable to have seperate hosts for receipts
>> vs. sending vs. orchestrations.
>> Is it worth splitting up hosts/instances across functionality like this,
>> or is it better to just focus on the "test" vs. "production" aspect (to
>> prevent issues).
>>
>> For example: should I have something like this?:
>>
>> Production server
>> ProductionInProcessHost
>> ProductionIsolatedHost
>>
>> Development workstation 1
>> TestInProcessHost1
>> TestIsolatedHost1
>>
>> Development workstation 2
>> TestInProcessHost2
>> TestIsolatedHost2
>>
>> Development workstation 3
>> TestInProcessHost3
>> TestIsolatedHost3
>>
>> Please let me know what your experiences with this have been and what you
>> would recommend.
>>
>> Thanks in advance!
>> Dan
>>
>>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • RE: [fw-wiz] Host based vs network firewall in datacenter
    ... MJR should chip in, since his posts seem to have caused you some mental anguish. ... | 1) Wide open - keep the hosts locked down tight and keep open services to ... | production systems now. ... as a network firewall would ease administration and having to ...
    (Firewall-Wizards)
  • Re: 2.6.20.4: NETDEV WATCHDOG and lockups
    ... On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Chuck Ebbert wrote: hosts and feel free to ask for more details. ... Although both boxes are in ... production we'll be happy test more bootoptions/patches and the like. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: 2.6.20.4: NETDEV WATCHDOG and lockups
    ... hosts and feel free to ask for more details. ... Although both boxes are in ... production we'll be happy test more bootoptions/patches and the like. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Hosts and Host Instances
    ... I would name them consistently across dev and production. ... MyAppMQRcvHost) rather than by environment. ... >> your production server or any other development workstation. ... >> you will partition hosts by function ...
    (microsoft.public.biztalk.general)