PS: Get well soon :)
2013/1/15 [email protected] <[email protected]> > I guess Wicket will use the standard Tomcat session handling. > Tomcat itself uses the same approach (in-memory, database or file-based) > for clustering > as we do. But of course it has some more advanced technologies to > synchronize and configure as well as its more reliable then doing something > from scratch. > > Sebastian > > > 2013/1/15 Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> > >> I believe Wicket supports clustering. Maybe we can use Wicket session? >> >> I'll try to review design ASAP (I'm a little bit sick right now, might >> take some time) >> On Jan 15, 2013 8:21 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Maxims, >>> >>> please review again, I changed it even more. >>> >>> This SOAP/REST sync between nodes is really not good. It will be much >>> too slow. >>> A lightweight session object in the database as you proposed initially >>> is better. >>> That way every node in the cluster has a lightweight (but clustered) >>> session store available and can redirect the user to the correct node (and >>> we have no cluster specific code in our app). >>> >>> Also that way we can use a DNS load balancing as like any other web >>> application and our HTTP traffic is clustered. Not only RTMP. >>> I think this approach more meets the real world. >>> >>> Sebastian >>> >>> >>> >>> 2013/1/15 Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> >>> >>>> Hooray :) less components is better :) >>>> On Jan 15, 2013 7:39 AM, "[email protected]" < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have updated the graph for the cluster architecture: >>>>> >>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OPENMEETINGS/Cluster+Master-Slave+overview >>>>> >>>>> The biggest change is that master and slave have the same database (or >>>>> database-cluster). That makes it a lot easier. >>>>> The master will still need to coordinate the load, so he needs to ping >>>>> all slaves to collect the load and redirect to the slave that has the >>>>> least >>>>> traffic (or that actually already hosts the requested room) >>>>> However the slaves can handle both HTTP and RTMP traffic. There is no >>>>> need to separate that anymore as the slave would use the same database as >>>>> the master. >>>>> >>>>> For syncing the recordings and other files to the master HDD there are >>>>> multiple solutions. One would be like Maxim proposed to do a Samba mount. >>>>> The other is for example to use some RSync scripts. This can be >>>>> decided by the end user on its own. >>>>> >>>>> I think this is more suitable then the previous approach and uses the >>>>> standard mechanisms for clustering. >>>>> >>>>> Let me know what you think about that. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> Sebastian >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Sebastian Wagner >>>>> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock >>>>> http://www.webbase-design.de >>>>> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sebastian Wagner >>> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock >>> http://www.webbase-design.de >>> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com >>> [email protected] >>> >> > > > -- > Sebastian Wagner > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock > http://www.webbase-design.de > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com > [email protected] > -- Sebastian Wagner https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock http://www.webbase-design.de http://www.wagner-sebastian.com [email protected]
