Comments on: My vote for a CF staging license http://john.beynon.org.uk/2008/06/26/my-vote-for-a-cf-staging-license/ Confessions of a code Junkie and anything else i fancy! Thu, 14 Jan 2010 03:02:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: SitePoint Blogs » The Week In ColdFusion: June 25-July 1: An unconference, a new book and a boatload of code http://john.beynon.org.uk/2008/06/26/my-vote-for-a-cf-staging-license/#comment-1099 SitePoint Blogs » The Week In ColdFusion: June 25-July 1: An unconference, a new book and a boatload of code Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:07:16 +0000 http://john.beynon.org.uk/2008/06/26/my-vote-for-a-cf-staging-license/#comment-1099 [...] John Beynon thinks there should be a “staging” license of Adobe’s ColdFusion server. What do you think? [...] [...] John Beynon thinks there should be a “staging” license of Adobe’s ColdFusion server. What do you think? [...]

]]> By: Michael Sharman http://john.beynon.org.uk/2008/06/26/my-vote-for-a-cf-staging-license/#comment-1000 Michael Sharman Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:05:10 +0000 http://john.beynon.org.uk/2008/06/26/my-vote-for-a-cf-staging-license/#comment-1000 Agreed, this has been an issue for years. I would love Adobe to come to the table with an offer to make it easier to manager testing/staging server licenses. +1 Agreed, this has been an issue for years. I would love Adobe to come to the table with an offer to make it easier to manager testing/staging server licenses.

+1

]]> By: Sean Corfield http://john.beynon.org.uk/2008/06/26/my-vote-for-a-cf-staging-license/#comment-999 Sean Corfield Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:00:27 +0000 http://john.beynon.org.uk/2008/06/26/my-vote-for-a-cf-staging-license/#comment-999 Well, as someone who has an Enterprise license on shared dev (for basic integration testing) and an Enterprise license on staging (for pre-production testing) and four Enterprise licenses on our production cluster - and looking at doubling up our dev/stage setup for multi-branch development - I'd certainly be happy to have some sort of cheaper dev/stage license for internal only usage. It really hurts to have to spend $7,500 per internal box (less whatever discount I negotiate with Adobe each time we buy licenses). It's almost forcing us to double up instances or go to VMs for internal use which is not really how we want our environments setup (i.e., forced to have multiple branches of code on the same server). We'd rather each server was like a mini-replica of production. Well, as someone who has an Enterprise license on shared dev (for basic integration testing) and an Enterprise license on staging (for pre-production testing) and four Enterprise licenses on our production cluster – and looking at doubling up our dev/stage setup for multi-branch development – I’d certainly be happy to have some sort of cheaper dev/stage license for internal only usage. It really hurts to have to spend $7,500 per internal box (less whatever discount I negotiate with Adobe each time we buy licenses).

It’s almost forcing us to double up instances or go to VMs for internal use which is not really how we want our environments setup (i.e., forced to have multiple branches of code on the same server). We’d rather each server was like a mini-replica of production.

]]> By: Kris Brixon http://john.beynon.org.uk/2008/06/26/my-vote-for-a-cf-staging-license/#comment-996 Kris Brixon Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:44:16 +0000 http://john.beynon.org.uk/2008/06/26/my-vote-for-a-cf-staging-license/#comment-996 @Jake It depends on your server load, nature of the applications and use of the staging server. It is not always necessary to have two machines. If you are writing in-house applications and the production server is <60% utilized and you have CF Enterprise, then there is not a real problem with it. If you only have CF Standard then I would not consider it. I agree that this may not be ideal, but it would work. @Jake
It depends on your server load, nature of the applications and use of the staging server. It is not always necessary to have two machines. If you are writing in-house applications and the production server is <60% utilized and you have CF Enterprise, then there is not a real problem with it.

If you only have CF Standard then I would not consider it. I agree that this may not be ideal, but it would work.

]]> By: Jake http://john.beynon.org.uk/2008/06/26/my-vote-for-a-cf-staging-license/#comment-988 Jake Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:26:02 +0000 http://john.beynon.org.uk/2008/06/26/my-vote-for-a-cf-staging-license/#comment-988 @Kris That would be stupid, they should be separate boxes. Bad bad idea. I think that we need something to allow us to have REAL staging environments. @Kris
That would be stupid, they should be separate boxes. Bad bad idea.

I think that we need something to allow us to have REAL staging environments.

]]> By: Gary F http://john.beynon.org.uk/2008/06/26/my-vote-for-a-cf-staging-license/#comment-987 Gary F Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:42:44 +0000 http://john.beynon.org.uk/2008/06/26/my-vote-for-a-cf-staging-license/#comment-987 I also like the idea of ordering licenses for extra IPs, it could also help out in other situations where you have a CF powered site but a limited audience. But in my experience ordering licenses from Adobe is a horrible lengthy affair that requires lots of chasing. They seriously need to modernise their license ordering and delivery system. The problem isn't just with CF licenses. I also like the idea of ordering licenses for extra IPs, it could also help out in other situations where you have a CF powered site but a limited audience.

But in my experience ordering licenses from Adobe is a horrible lengthy affair that requires lots of chasing. They seriously need to modernise their license ordering and delivery system. The problem isn’t just with CF licenses.

]]> By: johnb http://john.beynon.org.uk/2008/06/26/my-vote-for-a-cf-staging-license/#comment-986 johnb Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:11:26 +0000 http://john.beynon.org.uk/2008/06/26/my-vote-for-a-cf-staging-license/#comment-986 @chris that would assume you are using CF Enterprise - if you are then yes, that's definitely an options but some folk really don't like production/staging on the same server. One thing we are looking at though is virtualised environments so a client server can have two virtual servers, one for staging and one for production - with production having higher priority obviously. There again, for two servers/environments CF Standard still works out a better option financially over CF Enterprise. @chris

that would assume you are using CF Enterprise – if you are then yes, that’s definitely an options but some folk really don’t like production/staging on the same server. One thing we are looking at though is virtualised environments so a client server can have two virtual servers, one for staging and one for production – with production having higher priority obviously.

There again, for two servers/environments CF Standard still works out a better option financially over CF Enterprise.

]]> By: Kris Brixon http://john.beynon.org.uk/2008/06/26/my-vote-for-a-cf-staging-license/#comment-985 Kris Brixon Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:44:03 +0000 http://john.beynon.org.uk/2008/06/26/my-vote-for-a-cf-staging-license/#comment-985 How about setting up production with multiple instances and use one instance for staging. How about setting up production with multiple instances and use one instance for staging.

]]> By: Alfio Raymond http://john.beynon.org.uk/2008/06/26/my-vote-for-a-cf-staging-license/#comment-984 Alfio Raymond Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:16:46 +0000 http://john.beynon.org.uk/2008/06/26/my-vote-for-a-cf-staging-license/#comment-984 I like that idea of additional blocks of IP as well!!!! I like that idea of additional blocks of IP as well!!!!

]]> By: Jim Priest http://john.beynon.org.uk/2008/06/26/my-vote-for-a-cf-staging-license/#comment-983 Jim Priest Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:20:05 +0000 http://john.beynon.org.uk/2008/06/26/my-vote-for-a-cf-staging-license/#comment-983 I like the idea of buying additional blocks of IPs. I like the idea of buying additional blocks of IPs.

]]>