Morning all, So I'm looking at how best to handle horizontal & vertical scalability following an hour or two on the phone with Andy earlier which got me thinking. Currently scaling in services like Amazon EC2 involves having a service like RightScale monitor your application (e.g. response time, load average, etc.) and start new instances when (or ideally before) the figures reach unacceptable levels, track them while they're running, and kill them off again when the load returns to the baseline. This is pretty inefficient because each instance is its own first-class citizen and there is no connection between them (aside from the fact that they were started from the same image) - you have to handle them individually which in itself generates flurries of unnecessary API calls. A better approach to scalability is to have a single object which you can both adjust the resources of (vertical scalability) and adjust the number of instances of (horizontal scalability). That is, you start a single instance with 1 core and 1Gb, then while it's running you crank it up to 2 cores and 2Gb. Eventually you max out at say 8 cores and 16Gb so you need to go horizontal at some point. Rather than create new unlinked instances the idea is that you would simply adjust the number of requested instances and let the infrastructure take care of making reality match the request (if the available resources allow for it). When things calm down you can back off the number of requested instances and watch the (immutable) number of actual instances fall back as machines are gracefully shut down. Similarly one can tweak the allocated resources (RAM, CPU, etc.) and, provided the infrastructure supports it, the changes will be applied to all the "shadow" instances. Ultimately the "governor" (e.g. RightScale) could constantly tune the application based on the amount and type of load (a fair amount of artificial intelligence could go into these decisions but that's a subject for a different forum) and wouldn't have to worry about the mechanics of managing the resources (which arguably should be done locally anyway). Of course the infrastructure would also have the option of creating many separate instances if it wanted to (e.g. so providers like Amazon can still use OCCI if they want to). If anyone has any thoughts about this then I'd be interested to hear them... Sam