Small footprint WebAs 7.

My goal is to test a J2EE 1.3 compliant application against WebAs 7 (not the JEE 5 version). I have downloaded the SAP Netweaver 2004s SR2 (SP9) Developer Workplace. Although this is the "smallest" Java stack available, the footprint is still significant. Following note 739788 and 781882 I have tried to disable all features other than J2EE 1.3.
Nevertheless, the server still needs 20 mins to start (1GB RAM, 2GHz CPU) and seems to require significant memory. I remember that in the past there was a tiny WebAs 6.40 Java only, without portal. This one had a decent resource consumption. Also the new JEE 5 server comes with a decent footprint, but I need to test vs. J2EE 1.3.
Is there a "smaller" WebAS 7 (J2EE 1.3, no portal) somewhere? Or any other options to boost startup performance.
Regards KB

Hi Klaus,
There should be an option to skip portal installation in the SAPInst (Usage Types). (Although it may be required for Developer Workplace architecture)
Regards,
Mike
null

Similar Messages

How do I install Tiger with a smaller footprint??

I seem to run into a problem with re-installing Tiger on my Mac Mini Core Duo 1.66 with a 60GB drive. It says I only have 39.7GB free so how can I install with a smaller footprint without all of the applications that I don't need??

Hi Dougled, Welcome to Apple's Users Help Users Forums.
With over 50% free, space is not the cause of your problem. You can safely delete, do a custom install without, unneeded printers and foreign languages. Don't mess with Fonts unless you are sure of yourself.
A forum search on "install 10.4." will give you lots of suggestions.
Good Luck, JP

Small Footprint Router

Does anyone know if Cisco offers a device that is capable of performing layer2/3 services (supports T1 cards) that is in a smaller footprint then say the 2800 series.
Thanks,

I may suggest to get a 1800 rather than a 1700 as it may get end of lifed in near future.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps5853/index.html
Note this router is not rack mountable.

When do WL streams release byte[]. Smaller footprint under JBOSS.

We have a customer that started having memory issues. When we jprobed, we saw that half the memory usage they were seeing on the client was occupied by the byte[] corresponding to the objects streamed back from the ssb running on the application server. In fact, several calls to different ssbs that return very large amounts of data were responsible for large amounts of data hanging around on the client. I understand that weblogic has to hold onto these data structures to resolve multiple streams of the same object on the server side to the same object on the client. My question is, what controls garbage collection of this data? Under what circumstances will it be released?
When we ran the same tests under JBOSS the memory footprint was much smaller. If we could understand the BEA mechanism and force the stream to be reset (or do something that indirectly forces the stream to be reset) we would be happy.
Thoughts?
Thanks in advance.
Eric

Excellent Blog. Thank You
Small clarification on Step **6) Oracle Home Directory, ...a) Resize the Root Partition**
Ubuntu 11.10 has Gparted available as a Ubuntu software download, DONT use that while trying the above step, instead download the ISO file from http://sourceforge.net/projects/gparted/files/gparted-live-stable/ gparted-live-0.12.0-5.iso (124.6 MB)
Burn that ISO file on a Blank DVD, reboot the Ubuntu , during startup select Boot from DVD Option if not already selected. this will take to Boot Menu Options of Gparted Live then select the first menu option, and this allows to do further action such as Re-sizing .
and once you have chosen and executed step a) . do NOT run step b) also that is "Setup External Storage"
I hope this minor clarification can avoid some confusion
Regards
Madhusudhan Rao
Edited by: MadhusudhanRao on Mar 24, 2012 11:30 PM

Can Cisco connect be used for small business web filtering?

I am searching for a web filtering solution for our small church. The core requirement is to use a hardware-based solution to filter all internet traffic. Our current wiring looks like this: [ISP router] --> [switch] --> [Open Mesh wireless access points]. Can I connect a Linksys EA2700/3500/4500/6500 between the [ISP router] and the [Switch], disable the Linksys wireless, and use Cisco Connect to filter all the internet traffic?
More info: We will only have a handful of wired/wireless devices which we have control over. We expect most of the rest of the traffic to be generally outside our control via personally owned devices connecting thru the public wifi. Therefore any solution which requires installation of software on individual devices will not work.
(If there are other threads on this topic I'd be more than happy to read them, I just couldn't find any.)
Thanks!!

Hey
check this article:
http://www.oracle.com/technology/pub/articles/cunningham-database-xe.html
Regards

Small footprints?

Cisco sems to be good at 'small carbon footprint', which is all well and good, but...
I have to nail the switches onto the wall because they no longer fit in the d@mn racks!
Not every building has a full-depth rack, unfortunately. In older buildings I have to make do with what was put in for phone patching.
And often, if we don't watch the contractors very carefully, they still sneak in shallow racks today.
And you can't get a full-depth 8U rack.
(For smaller locations)
Having a bunch of 2960 8ports is a mess both in the rack and management wise.
Is it really that difficult to build shallow-depth switches?
I'd love 24port or 48port switches that's no deeper than the stone-age 2950 (9.5" ), even if they were 2U instead of 1U...
Sorry... Just wenting...
(About to start replacing 3750-24port switches with 2960XR-48ports... and in dire need of a shoehorn... )

It seemed to me that switches starting being 45-50cm deep when PoE and stackable switches came out.
You have to think of the features such as stacking, PoE, power stacking, redundant PSU's etc.
If you want all these features, then you are going to get deeper switches to accommodate bigger PSU's and fans etc for cooling.
The can't get wider so they will need to get deeper :)

IWeb vs. RapidWeaver for small business web site development

I am going to develop a web site for our small tour business that would contain descriptive text, pictures, testimonials, and an e-mail link that cannot be swept by bots. I have been scouring the forums about iWeb 2.0 and am hearing that there are a number of factors that limit it's suitability for a commercial web site. I would appreciate some feedback on the following points.
1. Would using an iWeb 2.0 template cause display problems on a PC running Internet Explorer; Microsoft does not follow approved web standards?
2. I would want search engines to find and index our site so that people could find it using Google or Yahoo. I understand that .Mac blocks access by spiders, but you can manually list your site with Google. Is this true?
3. I want to use our domain name in the e-mail address, is this possible with iWeb?
4. I would also like to use my .Mac account to host a site about my grandchildren using the iWeb generated URL, this doesn't seem possible if I have listed my business domain name.
5. Does anyone have any experience using RapidWeaver? This seems to be very iWeb like and may be a better solution for a small business.
6. Should I just use iWeb for the grandkids and RapidWeaver for the business, I have never written an line of code in my life and need something that is truly WYSIWYG.
Thank you for your feedback!

Hi There, I'll give you my info based on what I know and i'm sure otheres will correct me where they have other experiences....
1. all websites have niggles regardless of what program you use to create them with, iWeb sites are pretty good for compatibility, but as with any site, the more 'stuff' you add, fancy code or funny image types there wil lbe a number of people who have problems. I've found iWeb to be far less troublesome than sites generated from scratch using other programs, even dreamweaver (i'm a graphic designer).
2. dunno about .mac blocking stuff, but i've done commercial sites for clients that I've submitted to Google and they show up just fine when searched for.
3. e-mail address can be ANYTHING. for example you could even put a link to send me mail if you wanted. it is literally just a link to open someones mail program and add a mail address / subject ready for them to send.
4. You can set iWeb / .Mac to use a specific address that you have purchased. and you can have multiple domains from within iWeb.you can't directly publish sites to more than one address, but you can publish to folders and upload to different addresses, or if you make more than one site in iWeb, the first in th elist will become the one that your browser goes to using th emain address (www.yourdomin.com), but you'd stil lbe able to have other sites with their own sub address (www.yourdomain.com/grandkids) for example. you can even add password protection to different sites so your clients don't see photos of you and the grandkids lounging in the garden the day you said you were doing their job!
5. I can happily use Flash Dreamweaver, iWeb and plenty of other stuff, but found Rapidweaver to be a poor version of iWeb. It has certain benfits, but it is nowhere near as user friendly. I'd start with iWeb regardless, and see how you get on. Plenty of people have trouble enough with iWeb and it's basically a no-brainer compared to anything else out there - (short of yahoo webbuilder (pretty good for freebie!)
Just beware of the iWeb templates, they are getting very well known and don't lend themsleves to looking very professional. but use iWeb as a program to put together a simple site and it is easy to use and gets pretty tidy results. see here for simple site done with iWeb without using templates, and resulting in a more pro look and doesn't look like everyone elses site.
http://www.garethmorris.com
6. if you've never even tried editing HTML you want iWeb i promise you. it really is the best for starting offf with, and like i say if you design your own site rather than just using the templates without changing stuff you can get some good results - and quickly / easily.

IPv4 private addressing tradeoff: small footprint vs even VLSM length?

Is minimising one's use of the private address space to avoid unnecesary potential overlap worth the hassle of having un-even VLSM lengths?
I am designing my first non-trivial IPv4 addressing scheme in the 10.0.0.0/8 range. Just two small branch offices, but on the access-layer, I'm putting servers, printers, desktops and phones onto separate VLANs. (In fact, when doing L3 at the access-layer, you can quickly end up with multiple VLANs).
Now, few of these VLANs are so big that they'll need a /24 all to themselves. In fact, a /27 for phones and printers will be fine. I'll give a /24 to desktops because 255.255.255.0 is the only mask which semi-technical users understand. Maybe a /25 for servers, which gives a bit of room for further subnetting and putting VMs onto their own VLANs.
I'll summarise each site over DMVPN as a /21 subnet. Neat.
But at each site the routing tables look messy, with the router sporting addresses like 10.9.13.129/27 and there isn't any real pattern between the L3 address and the VLAN number.
Why don't I just dole out /24's to each VLAN, After all, I'm hardly going to minimise conflict with private IP addresses chosen by prospective partners by using /20's instead of /21's for each site (right?), and even if they do, NAT can handle all these situations elegantly (right?).
What about you, would you minimise your footprint in the address space and deal with 'unevenness' in subnet sizes? Or would you be easier on your eyes now and simply bite the bullet if you had to NAT one day?
thanks!
David.
Message was edited by: David Bullock - tries to get the crux of the question closer to the top of text.

I chose Alessio's as the 'correct' answer, since it mentioned route summarisation. But both answers were correct in the sense that they were quite reasonable.
In the end, I decided to go wtih my varying-length VLSM approach, to keep the address-sprawl at each site confined to a /21 subnet. I don't find the varying-length VLSM to be much of an nuisance in practice. I miss out on being able to make the 3rd octet 'line up' with the VLAN, but I feel that's a pretty delicate affair anyhow. Some person just has to give VLAN100 as a 'best practice' for the Voice VLAN, for example, and you either start working with a /17 at each site (minimally), or abandon your numbering scheme. You'd really have to go with a /16 for each site to ensure you can number 254 VLANs in this fashion. And that means for each site that you chose, there's a 1-in-256 chance you'll pick the same second octet as someone else. With my scheme, there is a 1 in 8192 chance that I'll pick the same address range, so I've decreased the likelyhood of a conflict by a factor of 32.
At the end of the day though, so long as route summarisation works, all other considerations seem to be a matter of taste.

Make a Quicktime clip small for web

How can I make a Quicktime clip (94MB) small for e-mailing it to a friend?

This what I usually do and it works best. I export the movie file just as a regular quicktime movie which you can select when you go to file-export-quicktime movie. This is a faster way of exporting files out of FCP. Then, i take the quicktime movie file, and import it into iMovie. After it's done importing, then drag it to the timeline in iMovie. Once it is in the timeline, you can go to file-share-quicktime. Then click where it says compress movie for : and i choose the web feature, because i upload projects to a website. I can upload projects that are 43 minutes long, and it was compressed to a size of 240x170 and the size of the 43 minute long piece compressed using the web feature was 49.7MB.
I know there is probably a feature in FCP that does the same thing, but havn't found it out yet. This process has worked nicely for me for the past year and a half, and I have had no problems

Installation How-to for minimal/small footprint Adobe Reader & Firefox Plugin

I need to install Adobe Reader & Firefox Plugin in a small Linux based environment.
As a proof-of-concept, I downloaded and installed the AdbeRdr9.4.7-1_i486linux_enu.bin
to an NFS share mounted to the Linux thinclient. That worked -- eg, the plugin was available
to the browser so the OS will support that build. However, the client does not have much
writable 'disk' space available and using any type of share (NFS/Samba) is not an option in
the production environment.
I need to use the plugin from within Firefox (6.0+) and have to be able to print via CUPS.
DIsk space available is less than 50Mb, preferrably a lot less!
Is there a guide available for a mimimal installation?
Any sugguestions as to what files/directories I have to copy to the local filesystem for
* an absolute minimum ?
* a bit more if there's room?
Suggestions / pointers appreciated..
Tom

First - what version of Adobe Reader do you have?
And now it gets a little bit complicated. Adobe Reader can be a plugin to Internet Explorer, and it crashes when you try to open an online PDF document. That is not unknown; it happens sometimes.
But when you open the standalone Adobe Reader, it also crashes with a plugin error. This time it must be a plugin to Adobe Reader, not Internet Explorer.
Furthermore you write "the same plugin error window pops up" - so I can only assume that it is a Reader plugin that crashes, not the IE plugin.
What I would try in your situation:
open Control Panel | Add/Remove Programs, and uninstall Adobe Reader;
open Windows Explorer and navigate to C:\Program Files\Adobe\Reader 9.0\Reader and delete all plugin... folders;
reinstall Adobe Reader from http://ardownload.adobe.com/pub/adobe/reader/win/9.x/9.3.3/enu/AdbeRdr933_en_US.exe
The path in the second line above could also be ...\Reader 8.0\... depending on your Reader version.

Any Chance on a Smaller Footprint Mac Pro?

I prefer the Mac Pro to the iMac for upgradability and separation from the Monitor. But the Mac Pro is enormous. I like more of a mid-size case. In my normal setups, I run 3 harddisks and 2 optical drives all of which fit nicely in a midsize case. I don't need all of the server level expansion capabilities and would be willing to sacrifice them for a more compact unit.

Sorry, but no one outside of Apple knows anything about future product releases. Anything anyone here would post would be pure speculation which isn't allowed here (the Discussions are for technical support on existing products). There are a number of rumor sites which you can read, but as to whether any rumors they report have any validity, your guess will be as good as ours.
But have you looked inside a Mac Pro? There's really not much room to compact the system without losing the expandability (slots, drive bays, and that second optical drive bay). The MP is only an inch larger than my Dell minitower (not counting the MP's handles), so while it looks huge, it's really not significantly larger than any other full minitower.

What is the best photo printer with a small footprint and moderate price

That "works" with Snow Leopard. I have a Canon i70 for years that only works erratically since upgrading. Wireless would be great or USB for my computer with wireless communication to my daughter laptop mac (she has Leopard and I have Snow Leopard) I am soooo tired of printer problems with my iMac (or my printer per se related to my iMac) Please working certitude is a Must! Thanks very much. d

What i'm looking for is exactly that: subjectivity, i.e, the specific experiences of Mac users and "their" printer:Snow Leopard marriages. Thus the discussion boards first followed by review research via my myriad Mac bookmarked sites. I'm scared of purchasing based on a magazine, Apple store employee, etc only to find out there are really SL glitches. d

What type application suitable for this requirement...?

Hi All,
We want to develope application that runs on 5 shops (for sales & stock), each stand alone PC running Oracle Express. From the head quarters, the owner want to be able to access this applications, on each sites, via dial-up connection (approx. 33,6 kbps or less).
Centralized 3-tier application is not an option , to reduce communication cost.
So the question is, which one makes more sense to implement :
1) JClient Application running on two-tier modes ?
OR
2) JSP based application, where each shop run OC4J, HTTP Server and browser on one stand alone PC ?
or any other prossibility ?
Thank you for your help,
xtanto

What's the budget?
Don't forget that the OC4J licenses are roughly $5,000 each, so 5 x $5,000 = $25,000 just for app server licenses. Then there is the hardware and OS cost for 5 machines for them to run on. Many factors to consider. If the only remote access is a small number of users from headquarters, then you might consider just using Jetty. It's a small footprint web server with web container that's written in Java and is very easy to configure and manage. Not a powerhouse solution for sure, but it doesn't sound like you're building an enterprise level app here.
You could run a Swing app locally at each site that talks to the database. Then run Jetty on each machine so that the owner can thinly hit the sites using JSPs depending on the amount of functionality he needs from each site.... more than likely it's just interactive reporting from the database at each site.
What about the 5 local databases? Do they need to stay in synch with a shared item list, for instance?
Just some things that you probably need to consider.
Erik

Web/Email experience on your HTPC Mini

I can understand why people have enjoyed the Mac Mini as a pure HTPC, once it is setup in the entertainment room. Here's a question for those of you who currently have your Mac Mini connected to your HDTV and use it dual purpose: HTPC and basic computer tasks such as email, web, etc. Are there many of you out there, or are these HTPC's relegated to just that, HTPC's?
How would you rate your experience using your HTPC Mini also as a computer? What accommodations have you had to make to improve that experience?
Some unthikables for me are running USB wires across the coffee table or having a separate mouse or trackball next to me on the couch. I can envision a bluetooth keyboard and integrated trackpad, but have yet to find the right one. (Logitech diNovo Edge looks most promising?).
How about the size of onscreen fonts? Do your eyes hurt from squinting at small fonts 10+ feet away? Even if my 40" LCD was capable of 1080p (which it's not), I would probably have to run the Mini's desktop at 720p, just to make the OS's text legible. Assuming your HDTV doesn't cover your entire wall, do you find yourself constantly straining or using "Apple''" to make fonts bigger in your browser?
Thanks for sharing your experiences.
PowerBook G4 Mac OS X (10.4.9) Sony KDL-40S2010 HDTV

From, 1 to 10 I would rate my experience with the macmini as HTPC with an 8. Here is why:
1) No noise at all comparing with a standard PC.
2) Low cost if you compare with a custom made PC as HTPC.
3) All software works: internet, email, youtube, music player, DVD player, MIDI player.
4) Good communication with the wireless keyboard and mouse (Bluetooth)
5) FrontRow and the moni-remote make a good couple.
6) Can do Unix, Linux, VNC from my other machines.
7) Everybody at home understands it. Cam start working with it with zero training.
8) Unbelievable small footprint for such computing power.
9) Burning CDs is a breeze.
Now, responding to your inquiries:
USB: Try to install the macmini as close as possible to the display to save on cabl and reduce noise and cable losses. I bought a mount bracket for the wall (behind the 26" TV flat panel), which comes with four USB in the front. Right now I am using one USB port only for the MIDI keyboard.
Location: I installed the 26" LCD display on the wall in the kitchen dining room. So, I have the table to put the keyboard and mouse.
Font: even with the 26" screen fonts are kind of small when you try to watch an inmternet page or the menus from 8' away. Then it comes handy the Ctrl+Scroll where you can zoom-in and out. Also, what I did is set the resolution to 1024x768 instead of the maximum resolution (1380x1024). That enhance the menu fonts to something more legible. And yes, the eyes hurt for the first two weeks. Then, you get used to it.
What do I dislike of the macmini as HTPC:
i) The mini-remote is too directional; it is optic not RF.
ii) The DVD player software does not show subtitles for all the movies.
iii) Macmini is slow to play divX or mpg movies via network. I even tried with VLC, but you can see the delay. Not fast enough.
iv) DVD recorder only works reliably from Parallels Windows. Could not record yet a workable data DVD from the pure Mac OSX.
I think, so far, the Macmini has been a remarkable experience.
Good luck.

Web Standard, Crossgrades, New Text Editor

I've been using "CS" since Macromedia Studio 8, but I didn't upgrade to CS5 last year because there was no 'Standard' package offered. I just don't need all the other stuff in the suite ... I don't even use everything in CS4 Web Standard. If this is just not ever going to come back, how about offering a discount on crossgrading to the individual programs we need from the suite. ie. a discount for the individual licenses of Fireworks, Dreamweaver, and/or Flash Pro. I just looked at the upgrade pricing for Web Premium CS5.5 ... it looks like the price just went up even more.
I find it a little hard to believe there is not any demand for a smaller web suite, like CS4 Web Standard. The only programs really necessary (for me) are a decent text editor with code hinting (Dreamweaver), a graphics program (either Photoshop or, for me, Fireworks), and maybe Flash Pro. I just don't need all the other stuff in the package. I would have just upgraded Fireworks, but I would have to pay full price for the individual program as there is no crossgrade option from CS to single program. Surely there are other people out there that feel the same way.
To be honest, I find myself using Dreamweaver and Flash less and less. I've been using a "no frills" text editor and an open browser for most projects over the last year or so. As far as Flash, I rarely open it - seems now just to edit an old app for a previous client.
Which brings me to the last part ... "Dreamweaver Lite". How would anyone feel about a light version of Dreamweaver? Streamline it, get rid of the WYSIWYG editing and Live Preview, keep code hinting and the CSS inspector/builder. Keep the 'projects' and FTP and add versioning (backups of latest document versions before going live). Make it a really lightweight Adobe text editor with a small footprint.
LOL, just re-read what I wrote ... looks like its kinda all over the place. I think folks will get what I'm going for though.

Hi Sonal,
I have faced similar issue with respect to module pool with container on the screen.
Try using the following on back action....
call method wf_init_edit->delete_text. (wf_init_edit -> editor reference - type ref to cl_gui_textedit )
Also we can free the container using
call method wf_init_cont->free. (wf_init_cont -> container reference - type ref to cl_gui_custom_container )
Hope it helps.
Regards,
Byju

Small footprint WebAs 7.

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for