It's all about the answers!

Ask a question
QuestionsTagsUsersBadges
Follow this question
Question details

×42,785
×10,907
×6,076
×5,815
×4,287
×3,952

question asked: Dec 04 '15, 10:01 a.m.
question was seen: 3,561 times
last updated: Dec 04 '15, 1:35 p.m.

Related questions

FAQ - How this Forum works

Any experience, advises in spoofing PRD public URI in non-PRD env with a reverse proxy server ?

0
long TRUONG (365●4●118●146) | asked Dec 04 '15, 10:01 a.m.
Currently we have RTC/RRC 5.0.2 on a Windows single server with Tomcat. We are trying to split the RTC off to its own server with the current single server host doubling as a reverse proxy server, for stability (almost weekly crashes or hangs on PRD currently) and performance

We had been spoofing the PRD public URI on POC and TST with frequent DB refreshes on TST from PRD clones. TST is used to shadow PRD closely.

We are now facing a dilemma:

It is straight forwards on PRD, but we have to prove the concept on POC and TST before we can implement the split on PRD.

We have either have to continue using spoofing, which IBM does not officially support  and IBM support does not think it could work with the reverse proxy server, or rely on the risky and involved "server rename" on POC and TST.

We have decided to go on our own to test spoofing as is (server rename both POC and TST to proof spoofing is safer but too costly and risky):

We are looking at continuing spoofing the single server, public URI pointing to itself in the ...\etc\hosts file, after installing Apache for the reverse proxy server on it. Then verify if spoofing continue to work on the server and from a spoofed client.

We will also spoof the new to-be home for the split RTC host, public URI pointing to the current single server in the ...\etc\hosts file, before we split off the RTC to it, and redirect the rProxySvr to it for ccm. Then spoofing is verified again.

We'd like to hear from you if you have ventured into similar implementation or if you care to comment, especially on any details we have overlooked, any pitfalls, or that it is an infeasible, futile effort.

2 answers

Most liked answers|Newest answers ↑|Oldest answers

0
permanent link
David Mehaffy (901●2●32●38) | answered Dec 04 '15, 12:52 p.m.
JAZZ DEVELOPER
I have been using the same activation key over and over.  It is really a method to get you to talk to support so that you don't do something that is not supported and that you understand the full implication of server rename I believe.
Comments
long TRUONG commented Dec 04 '15, 1:35 p.m.

 Thx David.
0
permanent link
David Mehaffy (901●2●32●38) | answered Dec 04 '15, 10:59 a.m.
JAZZ DEVELOPER
I am not part of development, but we routinely do server rename here and do not consider it to be risky.  We clone our production server and data to another server and do a server rename on the data so we can have a test server for testing new ideas and to testing iFixes and also testing upgrading to a new version of CLM.  We must have done this 30 times by now and have not encountered any problems.  You run far higher risk of  not containing the references to the production server via URLs from your test server that will cause corruption of your production environment than you do from doing server rename.

Just my thoughts and experience.
Comments
long TRUONG commented Dec 04 '15, 12:49 p.m.

 Thx David,


That's sure is reassurance if we have to venture into uncharted territory for us. 
Do you get activation key only once or every time? What is it actually for ?

Your answer

Register or to post your answer.


Dashboards and work items are no longer publicly available, so some links may be invalid. We now provide similar information through other means. Learn more here.